Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Family Benefits

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receive family credit; and how many received family income supplement in 1978–79.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I am pleased to tell the House that at the end of February 1991 there were 322,000 families in receipt of family credit—a figure more than four times higher than the 79,000 families who were in receipt of family income supplement in February 1979. The figure is the latest available, but does not fully reflect the full effects of the recent advertising campaign.

Mr. Greenway: Is not this increase in the number of families receiving special help through family credit—more than four times the number who used to receive the old family income supplement — a vindication of the Government's policy of introducing this rather better structured benefit? Will my hon. Friend undertake a review of the arrangements for claims by self-employed people on low incomes, many of whom find the process of claiming onerous and taxing? Does he agree that if the Government streamlined the application process that would show their clear commitment to helping low-income families facing genuine hardship?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation of family credit. He asked specifically about the structure of the benefit. It may be worth reflecting that 65 per cent. of people on the benefit receive £20 a week or more, 30 per cent. receive £a week or more and 17 per cent. receive £a week or more. Forty-five per cent. of the self-employed get £50 a week or more. I assure my hon. Friend that work is under way at the university of York to investigate the matters to which he referred.

Mr. Battle: Do not those figures show that more people need family credit because of an increase in poverty resulting from low pay? Will the Minister tell us the percentage uptake of family credit? That would be the key figure.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is something of an expert on social security and he will know that not until the publication of the 1989 family expenditure survey will an

accurate figure be available to answer his question. However, I can tell him that, as a result of our advertising campaign, claims are running at an all-time high of about 20,000 a week. I like to think that that reflects improved awareness of the excellence of the structure of family credit.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly how much money the taxpayer is spending on such support? Will he confirm that the Opposition thought that the benefit should be allowed to "wither on the vine"? What will people claiming the benefit do if that happens?

Mr. Jack: I assure my hon. Friend that, far from allowing this excellent credit to wither on the vine, we have fertilised its roots. The uptake is growing considerably and we estimate that we shall spend some £543 million on it this year.

Dietary Requirements

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research into dietary requirements he took into account in setting income support levels.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Income support, which was introduced in April 1988, is structured to provide extra benefit to groups facing the greatest pressures. Those groups were identified by the Department's analysis of low-income groups and the findings of a research survey commissioned by the Government from the Policy Studies Institute.

Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister acknowledge that income support levels are miserably low when set against nutritional needs? The poor get ripped off for the food that they have to buy. It may be cheap, but it is of poor quality. Families in my constituency tell me that on present income support levels they cannot afford to get take-away fish and chips once a month. Does not that tell the Minister that there is something fishy about income support levels? They are too low.

Miss Widdecombe: Our medical advice is that there is no reason why someone on income support should not be able to follow a normal and healthy diet. Where a general practitioner decides that it is in a patient's interests to have an additional special diet, it is available on prescription. The hon. Gentleman will know that prescriptions for those on income support are free.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend examine one technical problem that arises —that of people faced with bringing up a family on their own? If people in that unhappy position go back to school or take up training, they lose income support and that puts them in a dreadful Catch-22 situation. Can the problem be redressed?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware that responsibilities for maintaining young people in education and for supplying training to older people reside respectively with my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment. Training, employment and education are vital in enabling people to become free of state benefits and to go back to work. I assure my hon. Friend that much attention is directed to the problem that he mentions.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister confirm that people with AIDS could receive £30 a week before April 1988 for a special diet and nothing afterwards? Has the Department yet replied to Naomi Wayne, of the Terrence Higgins Trust, about the misuse of Anita MacDonald's research? Will she comment on Katie Peck's research, which showed that a high-protein, high-calorie therapeutic diet for people with symptomatic HIV in London now costs £42 a week? Why should they be left to complain that they are literally dying for want of the help that was available before April 1988?

Miss Widdecombe: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago —that those who need special additions which cannot be provided within a normal diet can obtain them on prescription. Our medical advice is that a high-calorie, high-protein diet can be achieved within the support that we are currently making available. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not likely to be overlooked and we have the matter under constant review.

Low-Income Families

Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any estimate of the number of low-income families facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent.(a) in 1978–79 and (b) for the latest year for which figures are available.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): As a result of the social security reforms, virtually no families have marginal deduction rates of over 100 per cent. in 1991–92. In 1985, 70,000 families had potential deduction rates of over 100 per cent. The 1985 figure is the earliest available.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he confirm that the latest figures on low incomes show that families with children in the bottom fifth of income distribution received increases in income of 19 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1987? Does not this give the lie to much false propaganda about the poor getting poorer under the Conservative Governments?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm my right hon. Friend's figure, which is drawn directly from last week's Select Committee report on low incomes. It helps to put in perspective some of the wilder and more misleading claims by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that some people in the very low income groups are poorer as a result of increases in fixed costs, such as water rates, which have gone up by 50 per cent. in Wales in the past two years? Will he undertake to examine methods of helping low-income people suffering from high water rates to see whether, in parallel with changes on the introduction of the council tax, something analogous to community charge benefit might be introduced?

Mr. Newton: To take the latter part of the question first, I am not sure that I would want to go down the path of adding to the complexity of our benefit structure a water rate benefit, because it would give rise to questions whether there should be an electricity or gas benefit, or benefits for other charges. The right course is to take

account of all these things when we look at the annual increase in benefits and that is something that I always keep under review.

Mr. Meacher: What is the point of boasting about lower marginal deduction rates when, according to the Select Committee figures that the Secretary of State cited a moment ago, the incomes of the poorest 5 million people have, after three periods of Tory Government, fallen by an average of 6·2 per cent? Is not it an obscenity that the numbers of people with less than half average incomes has more than doubled since 1979, yet the salaries of Social Security Ministers, who are supposed to meet the needs of such people have risen over the same period by more than 240 per cent? As the Government believe in performance-related pay, is not it high time that the Secretary of State apologised for his failure by taking a massive cut in his pay?

Mr. Newton: All that the hon. Gentleman has done in the past few seconds is to do what he did last week —use the figures on a basis that the Select Committee and the Institute of Fiscal Studies, both of which are independent of the Government, warned is not the most sensible and proper way to use the figures. The Select Committee report says:
Real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale.
The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that.

Invalid Care Allowance

Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from increases in the earnings disregard in invalid care allowance in the last two years.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The number of people getting invalid care allowance and declaring earnings has more than doubled since March 1990.

Mr. Norris: Given the eminent good sense of helping those who want to care for disabled people to do so at home, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the number of those who can claim an allowance while caring for invalids at home rose from 5,000 when the Government came into office to over 125,000 last year. Given the evident success of enhancing the earnings disregard, which last year more than doubled the number of people who are able to claim it while working, will my right hon. Friend take on board the idea of extending the earnings disregard principle further?

Mr. Scott: We monitor this carefully. It is worth reminding the House that expenditure has increased from £4 million in 1978–79 to £213 million in 1990–91. That shows our concern for those who care for the most severely disabled. I am equally convinced that generous earnings allowances encourage the carers to join or remain in employment.

Lone Parents

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the lastest available figures for the proportion of lone parents who receive maintenance.

Mr. Newton: Research undertaken in 1989 in connection with the White Paper "Children Come First" shows that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive regular maintenance.

Mr. Greenway: Is not it time that fathers —and mothers where appropriate—took responsibility for their children after walking out on them, rather than expecting society to fund their responsibilities to the tune of billions of pounds?

Mr. Newton: In a word, yes. I am glad that we shall, I hope, make substantial further progress in that direction with the Child Support Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place last week and which I hope will be debated here before too long.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Government have allowed, over the past 11 years, the near-collapse of the payment of maintenance from fathers and mothers on supplementary benefit income support, I welcome their 11th-hour conversion. Will the Minister give an undertaking that any moneys that are gained by the payment of this maintenance will be ploughed back into the social security budget and not paid back to the Treasury?

Mr. Newton: I would not wish to be taken as accepting the way in which the hon. Gentleman put the first part of his supplementary question. Substantial efforts were made over the two or three years before the Child Support Bill was put before Parliament to increase the amount of maintenance moneys being collected. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we need to consider all the relevant factors together. Large additional sums of benefit have been directed towards low-income families, including lone-parent families, for many years. We wish to ensure that there is a proper balance between what the taxpayer finds and what is found by others.

Pensioners

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes; and whether he has made any estimate of how this is likely to change over the next 20 years.

Miss Widdecombe: The latest information shows that, in 1987, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes compared with only 40 per cent. in 1979. As an even higher proportion of younger people now own their own homes, we have every reason to believe that that upward trend will continue into the next century.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will agree that the figures bear testament to the Government's positive action to encourage home ownership. As increased home ownership works through into the pensioner age group over the next decade, the next two decades and onwards, will my hon. Friend do everything in her power to encourage policies that will enable the asset value of home ownership to be uesd to help pensioners in their later years when they need every penny of income that they can get?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are already schemes to help pensioners to use the capital asset of their homes where that would help them because their current income is restricted. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. As I have said, there are already such policies and they will continue to be produced.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past 10 years we have taken great steps forward to improve security for pensioners in terms of their income, their homes and their persons? Will she confirm that there has been a great increase in home ownership and an increase in telephone links to those homes, from 50 to over 80 per cent? Will she consider further ways of extending that and other home security measures so that pensioners feel that they have security at home as well as in the street?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there has been an increase in all forms of pensioners' income. There was a 31 per cent. rise in pensioners' incomes during the first eight years of this Government. There has been a substantial increase in the ownership of telephones and of all consumer goods by pensioners. In general, there has been a rise in the economic position of pensioners, including their savings, income and home ownership.

Mr. Skinner: I did not rise earlier, Mr. Speaker, because of trouble with the cruciate ligament in my left knee.
Bearing in mind the fact that there are about 70,000 home repossessions a year, may I ask the Minister how many pensioners have had their homes repossessed? Given the consequent difficulties for local authorities, will the hon. Lady have a word with the appropriate Minister in the Department of the Environment to ensure that local authorities are able to rehouse pensioners whose homes have been repossessed? The authorities have not had the money to build houses and bungalows for those people.

Miss Widdecombe: Only 4 per cent. of pensioners are still paying a mortgage. All other pensioners who own their homes own them outright. The problem of repossessions is not as great among pensioners as it is in the rest of the population.

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of private income to top up the state pension and benefits.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that in 1987 a total of 84 per cent. of pensioners received some form of income other than the retirement pension and associated state benefits.

Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent and revealing statistics underline yet again the encouragement that the Government have given to people to save for their retirement? Is she aware that that resulted in a major increase in pensioners' incomes of about 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and more than half all pensioners now enjoy the benefits of an occupational pension. As an even larger percentage of recently retired pensioners have occupational pensions, there is every prospect of increasing independence among the elderly.

Mr. Winnick: Why should there be any room for complacency when, on the Government's own figures, two thirds of all pensioners have incomes of less than£5,000 a year? When will the Government apologise £if ever —for the way in which, 10 years ago, they broke the link between pensions and earnings? As a consequence, a married pensioner couple is now £24 a week worse off and a single pensioner £14 a week worse off. That is directly attributable to the actions of a Tory Government.

Miss Widdecombe: I see no reason to apologise for a 31 per cent. rise in pensioners' incomes, when all that a Labour Government could manage was a 3 per cent. increase —and that despite the operation of an earnings link. That proves that it is not an earnings link that matters, but the overall state of the economy.

Mrs. Roe: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that many people are anxious to learn the Government's views on equalisation of the state pension age and the implications that that will have for private pension schemes. Can my hon. Friend say what action has been taken by other countries in the European Community and whether we might learn a lesson from it?

Miss Widdecombe: For some time, the Government have been committed in principle to equalisation of pension ages. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it presents immense practical economic, demographic and social difficulties. We maintain our commitment to equalisation and the question of pensionable age is being debated throughout Europe. Many European countries are considering proposals for raising the pensionable age to achieve equalisation. We are not ready to present detailed proposals, but we are committed in principle to that very important policy.

Mr. Allen McKay: When considering pensioners' incomes, will the Government consider not only the numbers involved but the amounts payable? Many thousands of elderly people receive a very small pension, so can the Under-Secretary confirm that it is not the Government's intention to means-test benefits or state pensions?

Miss Widdecombe: It is precisely because we recognise the huge variety of income levels among the elderly that we target resources at the poorer pensioner. It is also why, over the past two years, we have directed £280 million in additional support at the poorer pensioner. Even those above the income support line have available to them housing benefit, community charge benefit, free NHS prescriptions and other benefits that are available in full to those who are on income support. Our policies acknowledge that there is not a homogeneous income level among the elderly and, accordingly, direct assistance towards those most in need.

National Insurance

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

Mr. Newton: Based on 1990–91 figures, if the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed, it is estimated that about 3·4 million people would pay more in contributions. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed, it is estimated that about another 0·5 million people would also pay more in contributions.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that the vast increases in social security payments and health service expenditure that occur almost every year are funded not by any special taxes but from the wealth of the nation —which is created

only by Conservatives? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that because of the ceiling placed on national insurance contributions advanced by the Opposition, one seventh of the working population would have to pay additional taxes?

Mr. Newton: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The more rapid economic growth achieved over the past decade under the present Government has been a crucial factor in enabling greater spending on both health and social security and in reversing some of the cuts in the hospital capital building programme that were made by the previous Labour Government. It is becoming clearer by the day that a significant part of the population —including senior nurses, managers and middle-managers, experienced teachers and many others—would be hit very hard by Labour's proposals for financing some of their promises.

Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people earning £20,000, £30,000, £100,000 or £1 million a year see the justice of paying national insurance contributions on all their income? They see the justice because they know that it will fund an increase in pensions for the single pensioner of £5 a week and for the couple of £8 a week, with index linking thereafter, as well as restoring child benefit to its 1987 level. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that national insurance payers are annoyed because they are having to fork out an extra £6 billion a year to pay for the Secretary of State's scheme to get people to opt out of state sector pensions and into private pension plans?

Mr. Newton: Very large numbers of those who will be expected to pay sizeable imposts under the Labour party's proposals will feel that there is no reason why they should pay increased national insurance contributions to finance a non-national insurance benefit, which has never before been paid out of the national insurance fund—child benefit. For the first time, they will apparently be expected to pay large amounts in national insurance contributions, for which they will gain no benefit.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Jack: It is expected that the agency's operation will reduce the taxpayer's expenditure on benefit by an additional £400 million per year in the long term. That is in addition to the benefit savings presently being achieved of £180 million.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that many women, and some men, in my constituency of Basildon are valiantly bringing up families on their own, with no support from their former partners and that they are delighted with the Government's legislative proposals? I accept the impressiveness of the figures which my hon. Friend announced, but will he take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Child Support Agency is not just to do with saving money on the overall expenditure on benefits?

Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considerable interest in this subject. He has corresponded


with me on behalf of the women's refuge and battered wives' home in his constituency. I should like to reassure him and the House that this is not merely about benefit savings. First and foremost, it is about establishing a line of responsibility for maintenance by absent fathers for their children. It is also a pathway to the future for some of those lone parents who wish to go back to work through the changes that we are making to family credit by reducing the number of hours from 24 to 16, thus making this benefit much more accessible to them, and giving them £15 of any maintenance recovered in the form of a disregard at that time.

Mr. Janner: Is there any hope of any of that£400 million saved being used for day nurseries or other facilities so that lone parents who wish to go back to work can afford to do so? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problem is not merely the award of maintenance but its collection? Many women who are back at work and earning about as much as they need to pay the babysitter have no financial help, no resources, no offer from the Government and not much hope for the future.

Mr. Jack: There is hope for the future. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned collection. The Child Support Agency will be powerful and fully equipped, both administratively and with information technology, to do the job of collecting maintenance. I have said that the women to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred would be on family credit and I have described the improvements in that benefit which will arise in parallel with this measure. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to example 10 in the White Paper, "Children Come First", where he will see well exemplified the point which he draws to my attention, showing that women will be better off in work with family credit as we propose it.

Mr. Lester: Although I welcome the principle of the Child Support Bill, will my hon. Friend also take account of the fact that many fathers are denied access to their children because of marital difficulties and that one reason why they do not support their children is that their previous spouse may make it difficult for them to play a part in their children's upbringing? Will he bear it in mind that that factor is critical when striking a balance? Fathers should support children, but they should also have a part to play in their upbringing.

Mr. Jack: There have been many representations to the Government on the Child Support Bill and that matter. We have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Access arrangements are entirely matters for the courts during, for example, divorce proceedings. I certainly would not like financial help for children to be used as a lever, to a child's detriment.

Independent Living Fund

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last had discussions with voluntary bodies on the future of the independent living fund.

Mr. Scott: I have received representations from many bodies on the future of the independent living fund. We will of course, take them into account when making decisions about the future of the fund.

Mr. McFall: The Government set up the independent living fund as a knee-jerk response to repressive social security legislation in 1987. There will be no future for disabled people after 1992, and the Minister knows that. I have received representations from many disabled people. They know that the budget is cash limited instead of being dependent on need. When will the Minister have a decent answer for disabled people, so that they will have a future, just like able-bodied people in our society?

Mr. Scott: I should have expected a harangue rather than a proper question about the future of the independent living fund. As the hon. Gentleman knows, between its inception and this financial year, we have increased expenditure on the fund tenfold to meet the needs of severely disabled people. We shall listen carefully to the arguments when we debate Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill tomorrow, and we look forward to responding then.

Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of disabled people and of those who are interested in their welfare on the establishment of the fund and on the huge tenfold increase in Government funding? Does he accept that voluntary organisations are concerned about the future of special funding for the 7,000 or 8,000 severely disabled people who are helped by the fund because after 1993 responsibility is likely to pass to local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that funds will be available from local authorities when that change takes place?

Mr. Scott: As I said to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), we shall have an extended opportunity tomorrow to consider that matter when we discuss Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill. I look forward to responding more fully then. I recognise the importance of ensuring that, after 1993, proper arrangements are made to cope with the needs of severely disabled people.

Mr. Frank Field: Can the Government name a single organisation that supports the proposal to wind up the fund in 1993?

Mr. Scott: In making that point, the hon. Gentleman prejudges the arrangements that will be made for either existing or new cases. The vast majority —indeed, the totality —of those who represent disabled people are anxious that proper arrangements are made after 1993 to ensure that the needs of disabled people are properly taken into account.

Low-income Families

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of low-income families which faced marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. in 1978–79 and the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of low-income families which faced marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. in 1978–79 and the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Newton: I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) earlier today.

Mr. Sumberg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. His earlier answer set out our commendable record. Is he aware that this weekend the Labour party dropped its pledge to low-income families to introduce a lower rate of tax for the poorest in our community? Is not that another example of the chaos and confusion in the Labour party on its proposals to help the lowest paid?

Mr. Newton: It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the Labour party's commitments on these matters, except that they would clearly cost an amount that the country could not afford.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on taking office in 1979 we found that one of the worst effects of the previous Labour Government was that many people would have been better off on the dole although they were working long, hard hours in low-paid jobs? Does he agree that the Government's great achievement is that they tackled that problem with a combination of better family credit payments and reductions in taxation for the low paid? It would be a great shame if a future Government were to reverse that.

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. One of the worst defects of the social security system as we originally found it was that it did not pay large numbers of people to work at all. That is not satisfactory from anyone's point of view, including that of those people. I regard the fact that we have reduced that number so greatly as a major gain.

Mr. Pike: Is not the Secretary of State concerned about low-income families who may be forced to take out an essential loan and then find that the capital for that loan is taken into account as income, thereby losing them their entitlement to benefit? Is not that wrong and does not it penalise low-income families?

Mr. Newton: I must admit that I am not certain what point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, the availability of interest-free loans under the social security system in certain circumstances is an important advantage to many people compared with people just above the social security income support level who have to borrow at commercial rates.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware of a written reply that I received from his Department recently which set out a table of the marginal benefit increases for earnings between £100 and £150 a week? That table revealed the extraordinary fact that an average family with two children paying average rent and average poll tax and with entitlement to benefit would receive, if its income rose from £100 to £120, a benefit increase of £2·12 a week. Those getting what seems like a windfall increase from £100 to £150 a week would have a real increase in income of less than £7 a week out of £50. They are incredible marginal rates compared to those for top earners. What does the Minister propose to do to give a real incentive to those low-paid people who are so hard hit by the system as it stands?

Mr. Newton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman extend his researches from the unemployment trap, which started

these exchanges, to the poverty trap, which is the result of the high marginal deduction rates to which he referred. There, too, he will find that, because of the changes that we have made, the numbers of people subject to the highest marginal deduction rate —80 per cent. and above —have been drastically reduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Guildford and Woolwich Bombings

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich case extends to the Maguire convictions. He is expected to resume his inquiry into this aspect once the Maguire appeal is decided. He cannot complete his investigation of the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford and Woolwich defendants until criminal proceedings against members of the Surrey police force have been concluded.

Mr. Banks: Is it not a fact that the Birmingham and Guildford stitch-ups have done great damage to the concept of British justice? The people want someone brought to account for those perversions of justice. We are talking not about humble coppers at the bottom, but about the people right at the top. Will the Attorney-General give a guarantee that if Sir John May's inquiries point the finger at Lords Havers, Donaldson and Roskill, he will not nobble Sir John May?

The Attorney-General: I regret the language with which the hon. Gentleman referred to cases which are now sub judice. He said that the British people are anxious to get justice. That will be done according to the rules and not to prejudged statements, which are not helpful. Last week, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police delivered a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I said in my earlier answer, proceedings are now in train against certain former members of the Surrey police regarding the Guildford case.

Mr. Cohen: It is not a matter of language but of people being imprisoned falsely and of the people who did that having a cover-up in their favour. Will the Attorney-General confirm that the original convictions were based on false confessions and phoney forensic evidence? Have not the Government and other influential figures within the state been keen for Sir John May's inquiry to be half-hearted and slowed down? Is not the reason for that the fact that many senior police and legal officers, including people in the DPP, knew right from the start of the case that innocent people had been convicted?

The Attorney-General: The Court of Appeal has allowed appeals in the Guildford and Woolwich cases, as well as in respect of the Birmingham matter. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can sensibly expect me to go beyond the words of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in each case. As for his remarks about the purpose of those


who set up Sir John May's inquiry, I can give an authoritative answer, as I was one of them. The answer is no.

Mr. Favell: Every conviction of an innocent person is a tragedy, not only for the person concerned but for his or her family and, of course, for the British judicial system. But it is also a tragedy when a person guilty of crimes as abhorrent as these gets away scot free. People worked hard to establish the innocence of those who were convicted. How much help has my right hon. and learned Friend received from these people to identify those who were guilty of the crimes?

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. Those who have had their appeals allowed in these circumstances are entitled to the presumption of innocence, as is everybody else in this country. Equally, of course, when very serious crimes go unpunished, that is a very serious matter, and very much against the interests of justice. My hon. Friend made his point in the concluding part of his question.

Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members, in their capacity as members of the British-Irish parliamentary body, have been to Dublin and had discussions with members of the Dail and senior Ministers in the Irish Government about the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich cases? The Irish authorities are more than happy about the result and recognise the strength of the British legal system in its ability to rectify mistakes, regrettable as they are. It is a credit to the system that that has been achieved.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I know, takes close interest in these matters. I have close contact with Dublin—particularly with my opposite number —and I know that there is ready appreciation there of the fact that the judicial system in this country led to the overturning of these convictions. There is also very ready understanding of the fact that all criminal justice systems depend upon the quality of the evidence that is presented.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General confirm that, despite Sir John May's membership of the royal commission, the Government expect him to move swiftly to establish the facts and to report as quickly as possible? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Sir John's report on the facts will not be subsumed in the royal commission's inquiry into wider policy or procedural questions? Can the Attorney-General say when the trial of the three police officers will take place? Can he assure the House that those trials will not be unduly delayed and that, in respect of those aspects of Sir John's inquiry, there are no other complications and that we can expect interim reports?

The Attorney-General: I am glad that Sir John May has agreed to serve on the royal commission. There is very widespread admiration for the quality of the work of his inquiry so far. The appointment of the royal commission will not preclude a very full inquiry by Sir John into the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire matters. I cannot say when prosecutions, if any, will take place, but no one is the slightest hit anxious to delay any matter of this kind.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. McFall: To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I have received correspondence from one member of the public about this case since the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment.

Mr. McFall: Does the Attorney-General realise that, in 1975, the trial judge Lord Bridge, said that if the Birmingham Six were telling the truth, the police were involved in one of the greatest conspiracies in the annals of history? At the Appeal Court two months ago, it was stated that 14 police officers lied or their evidence was unreliable. One of the police officers is a superintendent in the complaints department of West Midlands police. When will the Attorney-General take action so that the criminal justice system can be seen to be upright and clean, and British justice can hold its head up high?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must have missed what I said a few minutes ago. Last week, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police delivered a report on the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Industrial Espionage

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy in cases of industrial espionage.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): English law contains no specific offence of industrial espionage, but those engaging in such conduct may incur criminal liability, depending on the circumstances. The decision whether to prosecute in any particular case is taken in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the case of Mr. Gordon Layton of National Car Parks and of Jane Turpin of KAS, a security company, and the allegations made about their activities? They are alleged to have committed industrial espionage and to have stolen documents. Will there be a prosecution in that case?

The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I do not make public our discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, on the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, investigations are continuing but a report has not yet been received by the director.

Mr. David Martin: When and if my right hon. and learned Friend has an opportunity to raise with the Director of Public Prosecutions matters of industrial espionage, will he also see whether action can be taken against the perpetrators of notoriously false literature that circulated at a recent by-election? Should not the matter be investigated urgently before the perpetrators have a chance to flee the country?

The Solicitor-General: I think that I have already heard the Opposition make a statement from the dock on "Today" this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Brazil

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to Brazil.

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to Brazil by the Minister for Overseas Development.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My second visit provided an important opportunity to see the environmental projects under our bilateral programme, and to discuss further co-operation with key Brazilian Ministers, scientists and institutions. Together with the Minister for Environment, I attended the special environment seminar hosted by President Collor and HRH The Prince of Wales. This is helping to advance preparations for the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio in 1992.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the Environment Committee that the perception of those issues, the resources and technical expertise matter, and that it is no excuse to cut overseas aid to the third world when things go wrong?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right, but the Governments of the tropical states need to ensure that their perceptions of what is going on are up to date with the issues. Donors can help with resources and technical expertise, and we shall definitely do so.

Mr. Arbuthnot: What help can donors give, and what help is the United Kingdom giving, to combat the growing urban problems in Brazil, such as the drift to the cities, slums and drug taking, which affect a quarter of all children in Brazil?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. That is a major issue. By the year 2000, 75 per cent. of the populations in Latin America and the Caribbean will be urban dwellers. We are giving them help in Olinda in Brazil and are exploring urban environmental management projects in Sao Paulo, and we have projects to help street children through the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Oxfam.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Lady's visit confirm her belief that before the House of Commons goes into recess, it should debate the well-researched Select Committee on the Environment report on the rain forests? I am not a member of that Committee, but I feel that our colleagues have done an excellent job and that the report should be debated. On the right hon. Lady's letter of 17 April to me, what further possibilities does she foresee for the work of Salati and Lutzenberger?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. As for my letter of 17 April, I have no more to report at present.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Minister say something about the problems that have beset many of the communities in Amazonia, where many of the laudable

projects presently supported by the Government are taking place and where there is open abuse of human rights, including murder and torture? Will she give an undertaking to the House that the next time she meets the Brazilian authorities she will tell them that the money that this country donates to research projects in Brazil will very much depend on Brazil's human rights record and that this country will take measures designed to wipe out those barbaric practices?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. I have already raised those issues with Brazilian Ministers, and shall do so again if necessary.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware that tropical rain forests contain many seeds and other products of great medicinal value, about which science is often as yet unaware. Bearing in mind that this country has Kew gardens and other institutes of worldwide renown, what assistance is it giving to the Brazilians to remove from the tropical rain forests, without damaging them, those products of great value which yield resources for the people in those districts?

Mrs. Chalker: We have approved a host of environmental projects, including those related to aromatic plant development and flood plain ecology and managements. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in all our work, we seek to develop the whole bio-diversity of the forests, not just trees.

Foreign Students

37. Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of foreign postgraduate students who study in British universities helped by Her Majesty's Government grants.

Mrs. Chalker: In 1990–91, Her Majesty's Government supported approximately 25,000 overseas students studying in the United Kingdom at a cost of £143 million. About 44 per cent.—11,000 students—were from non-Commonwealth countries. The majority of awards were at postgraduate level. We expect to maintain that level in the current year.

Mr. Wray: When Ministers appeared before the House of Lords Select Committee in 1989, it showed some concern at the dwindling numbers. Will the Minister assure us, as she assured the Select Committee, that the Government will be giving more aid to organisations?

Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure to which figures the hon. Gentleman refers, but in each category of scholarship—the ODA, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British Council, Department of Education and Science and Department of Trade and Industry—the numbers have risen during the past five years, and I see no reason why that should change.

Mr. Wells: Do my right hon. Friend's figures include the excellent Institute of Development Studies, which many postgraduate students have attended, which has established a world-renowned reputation and which the ODA supports to a considerable extent from its budget?

Mrs. Chalker: The short answer is yes, and many other good institutions besides.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister acknowledge that during the past decade there has been a regrettable shift away from students from poorer overseas countries towards richer countries such as those in north America and the middle east? If that is true of the undergraduate population, is it also true of the postgraduate population?

Mrs. Chalker: We believe that the undergraduate population should best be helped within its own countries and that more specialised training, which can rarely be afforded overseas, should be given in this country. That is why there are more postgraduate students here than there were some years ago, but fewer undergraduate students, who can benefit from the courses and technical co-operation that we give recipient countries through our aid programme.

Disaster Relief

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision has been made for disaster relief in the ODA budget for this year.

Mrs. Chalker: From within the existing aid budget for this financial year I have already allocated£94·5 million. On 29 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a further £30 million addition to the aid budget.
Today, I am pleased to announce a further £30 million addition to the aid budget to be used for humanitarian relief in Africa and Bangladesh. I now look to other donors to follow our lead.

Mr. Campell-Savours: Perhaps I can be forgiven for asking the following question because you, Mr. Speaker, will know why I am asking it. Does the Minister have time to argue for moneys from the Treasury given that Mr. Andrew M. Smith, her former personal assistant, stated that it was impossible for the Minister to do a proper job for her own constituents?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is making a very snide point. The prospective parliamentary candidate for Cynon Valley asked questions about the time that the hon.

Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spent in her constituency. I have made it clear that I spend every weekend that I can in my constituency, and I will continue to do so. I will not let the hon. Gentleman's remarks detract from thep £30 million extra, making £60 million extra for the aid budget in the first two months of this financial year.

Mr. Wilshire: I have spent part of this morning at the warehouse at Heathrow airport which Heathrow Airport Ltd. has made available free of charge for storing clothes that are to go to Kurdistan. I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tremendous job being done there. Is she aware that that warehouse is now full because of a lack of flights to get the donated goods to Iraq? Will she, therefore, meet me and others to see whether it is possible to make more arrangements for more mercy flights?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says. It has been somewhat difficult with some of the clothing and other donations because they were not acceptable to the recipient Governments. We have done all that we can—and will continue to do so — to get relief supplies through as they are needed. I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. However, the system on the whole is working well when the countries will accept the goods that have been donated.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister believe that economic circumstances now permit an increase in the overseas aid budget to 0·7 per cent. of gross national product, which is the United Nations target?

Mrs. Chalker: I am interested to note that the shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said yesterday on television:
0·7 per cent. is a goal and that we will do our best to meet it as resources allow.
I find that rather at variance with what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is saying. As the shadow Treasury Minister replied that the interviewer was nitpicking, I must respond by saying that I do not think that an increase of £2,000 million, however worthy the cause, is nitpicking.

Further and Higher Education

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for education for all young people over the age of 16.
More young people than ever before are taking up education and training opportunities. Six out of 10 16-year-olds stayed on in full-time education last autumn compared with four out of 10 in 1979. Three out of four 17-year-olds are in education or training today compared with two out of four 10 years ago. One in five 18 and 19-year-olds now continue into higher education compared with one in eight 10 years ago. More adults are also taking advantage of the educational opportunities available. All 16 and 17-year-olds in this country have a guarantee of a place in full-time education or training if they choose to take advantage of it. We secure places for all those who wish to go on into higher education and who are suitably qualified.
We need to build on those achievements. That means developing more vocational qualifications of a standard that will win equal esteem with the best academic qualifications. It means giving schools, colleges and universities the institutional freedom and the necessary incentives to develop and respond to the demands of young people and of employers. The Government are setting themselves the aim of achieving mass participation in higher education, further education and training, while maintaining and enhancing present high standards.
The Government's proposals are contained in three White Papers which are being published today. The necessary legislation to implement the proposals will be brought before the House in due course.
I refer first to the White Paper entitled "Education and Training for the 21st Century" which I present to Parliament with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Wales. That sets out new policies for education and training after compulsory school age. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will describe the new training policies in a further statement to the House in a few moments, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is presenting his proposals in a separate White Paper.
The White Paper sets out in detail the Government's proposals for further education colleges and sixth-form colleges. As I announced to the House on 21 March, we intend that those colleges will become autonomous institutions outside local authority control.
The colleges will be funded by national Further Education Councils in England and in Wales. They will receive each year a core budget plus additional funds according to the actual number of students enrolled. In that way they will have a powerful incentive to recruit and retain additional students, both young people and adults. The councils will not manage the colleges. They will follow the model of the funding council that has so successfully steered the remarkable growth of the polytechnics after we freed them from the control of local government.
Vocational qualifications have for too long been misunderstood and undervalued in this country. The White Paper sets out how the introduction of a clear

structure of national vocational qualifications can be accelerated. The range of qualifications will meet the needs of students of all abilities. At level 3, they will be set at a high standard equivalent to A-levels.
A-levels are successful and well-respected examinations, which are being taken by steadily increasing numbers of pupils. I am determined to see them maintained and to control their development so that their high standard is preserved. I am writing today to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, setting out my views on the principles that should govern the development of A-level and AS-level examinations. Those principles are designed to ensure consistency of standards between AS-levels and A-levels and to provide a framework for increasing numbers of young people to pursue courses of academic study that can be broadened by increasing the take-up of AS-level examinations. A copy of my letter to SEAC has been placed in the Library of the House.
A-level and AS-level courses are not the only route to excellence and to higher education. We must do more to promote understanding among students, employers and higher education institutions of the value and quality of national vocational qualifications at equivalent standard. The Government have therefore decided to introduce new diplomas at advanced and ordinary levels. The advanced diploma will be awarded to students taking AS-levels and A-levels, to students gaining vocational qualifications of the same standard, and to students taking a mixture of the two. I intend to consult on the details later this summer.
The White Paper describes two further measures that are directed at schools. First, the Government intend to legislate to adjust the school leaving date. At present some 16-year-olds are able to leave school legally at Easter, before completing key stage 4 of the national curriculum and before their GCSE examinations. We shall introduce legislation to require all pupils to complete their studies at the end of the summer term. That will ensure that all pupils will have their level of attainment at the end of their compulsory education properly assessed.
Secondly, I believe that we should allow both schools and colleges of all kinds to broaden the range of courses and opportunities that they offer. The White Paper therefore announces the intention to introduce legislation that would enable school sixth forms to admit part-time students and adults. The main work of sixth forms will continue to be for young people studying full-time, but they will have greater freedom to take on other students if they wish and if there is room.
In higher education, we need to build on the successes of recent years. The academics in our universities may sometimes grumble, I know, but they are to be congratulated on their progress in expanding access to more students in recent years while maintaining the best academic standards in the developed world. The polytechnics and colleges, freed from the control of local authorities, have also demonstrated that rapid expansion and improvements in quality can go hand in hand. The Government congratulate the polytechnics and colleges on what they have achieved, particularly in widening access to higher education and in developing vocational courses. The formal distinctions between universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges on the other, known as the binary line, have, in my opinion, now become an


obstacle to further progress. The Government propose to abolish those distinctions and establish a single framework for higher education.
With my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, I am presenting to Parliament today a White Paper setting out the main features of our proposals for higher education.
First, we shall establish a single funding structure for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education. In order to reflect particular needs in Scotland and Wales, there will be separate Higher Education Funding Councils in England, Scotland and Wales to distribute public funds for both teaching and research. New links will be established to continue the present close relationship with Northern Ireland's existing unitary structure.
Secondly, the Council for National Academic Awards has successfully brought the polytechnics and other major institutions to a position where they can offer degrees under their own quality control arrangements equal in standard to those offered by the universities. We propose therefore to extend degree-awarding powers to polytechnics and major institutions and to wind up the Council for National Academic Awards. We shall, however, look to universities, polytechnics and colleges to develop their own new quality audit arrangements on a United Kingdom-wide basis. We shall also require the Higher Education Funding Councils to establish quality assessment units to advise the councils on the relative quality of teaching and learning across institutions so that those judgments of quality can inform the distribution of public funding.
Thirdly, we shall extend the title of university to those polytechnics that wish to use it. It is our firm intention, nevertheless, that the present distinctive features of the polytechnics, with their particular emphasis on links with industry, vocational degree and sub-degree courses, and applied research, should be retained.
The Government believe that this new framework will provide for an expanding, thriving and diverse system of higher education in the United Kingdom. Our policies are designed to ensure that higher education continues to expand efficiently alongside improvements in quality. When we came into office only one in eight of the relevant age group went into higher education. Now it is one in five. By the end of this decade, we confidently expect one in three of all our young people to benefit from higher education of our traditional high quality.
I feel privileged to present these two White Papers to the House this afternoon. They will transform post-school education and training. They will enhance the esteem of vocational education. They will benefit ever-larger numbers of students, from all backgrounds and at all levels. Our policies pave the way for a better society and greater economic success. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: Despite all the public relations hype surrounding the publication of these White Papers, close examination of the statements will show that the Government are running out of ideas as quickly as they are running out of time.[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a great deal of work lo do today.

Mr. Straw: We welcome the change in the school-leaving dates, for which we called in 1980, the change to allow part-time sixth formers to continue their education in sixth forms and, particularly, the establishment of a

single funding council for higher education, which has been Labour policy for years and which Ministers voted down three years ago.
The Secretary of State has just confirmed the removal from local control of the 557 further education, tertiary and sixth-form colleges of England and Wales and their enforced transfer to centralised control from Whitehall. Is the Secretary of State aware of the enormous opposition that those plans have aroused within his own party? What is his response to the views of many local authority Conservative leaders, including Mr. Tim MacNamara, the leader of Hampshire county council, who said on Friday that the Secretary of State was
hell bent on destroying local education authorities without any idea of what to put in its place";
who complained of the Secretary of State's "government by denigration", and who said these changes were blighting all planning of 16 to 19 education? Was not the same Mr. MacNamara correct to accuse the Secretary of State of acting "for wholly doctrinal reasons"? Is not the Secretary of State showing the same doctrinal prejudice that so infected his stewardship of the national health service and has so damaged the Conservative party's electoral chances?
Is the Secretary of State aware that only three years ago, by section 120 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the Government imposed new duties on local education authorities in respect of further education? Ministers then expressed
great confidence that local authorities will fulfil their duty to promote further education."—[Official Report, 24 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 55–52.]
They spoke of the need for strategic planning for further education by LEAs. What has happened since then to justify these changes? With 60 per cent. of 16-plus provision transferred to central control, leaving 40 per cent. in local authority sixth forms, who will now plan the system—or is it all to be left to some kind of bogus market?
The Secretary of State said that he was setting some aim for improvement in higher education. Where are the targets against which the seriousness of the Government's commitment can be judged? The Labour party has set clear targets for improving the system. Where are the Conservatives' targets?
The central problem of 16-plus education and training is the academic and vocational divide, with outdated A-levels on one side and a jungle of vocational qualifications on the other. By his statement the Secretary of State has conceded our argument, but produced a wholly incoherent solution to the problem. Is he not aware of the weight of opinion against unreformed A-levels, from the Confederation of British Industry, from the Institute of Physics, from the vice-chancellors and from the Government's own Advisory Council on Science and Technology, and of the overwhelming weight of opinion in favour of Labour's alternative—an integrated advanced certificate of education and training?
Does the Secretary of State understand that he is reinforcing and perpetuating a divided system? Because A-levels and the new vocational qualifications will have different content, structure and assessment, young people can continue to be trapped in either a vocational or an academic route.
How is the new diploma to work? What will it cover? Will it be instead of A-levels or will it run parallel to them?
As I said, we welcome the Government's belated recognition of the strength of the case that the Labour party has advocated for years: to end the binary divide, to have a joint funding council for higher education and to achieve parity of esteem between universities and polytechnics, which were a creation of the Labour Government in 1967. However, the Secretary of State ducks key issues. Will access to higher education depend, as Labour believes that it should, on the ability to benefit or will the Government make it further dependent on the ability to pay?
Will the Secretary of State scrap the discredited student loans scheme or does he expect students to go deeper and deeper into debt? Does he have any plans to review the operation of the scheme? Will he categorically rule out top-up fees as a means of financing expansion?
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the proposed quality body will be controlled neither by the Government nor by a cartel of institutions, but will be genuinely independent so as most effectively to safeguard quality and academic freedom?
The Secretary of State sought to pretend that Britain's record on education and training is far better than it is. Has he forgotten that just seven weeks ago, in this House, at that Dispatch Box, he admitted that
we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training, and their achievement of useful qualifications"?—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 432.]
Has he forgotten that the former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), said at a Carlton club seminar that the low stay-on rate in full-time education and training showed Britain to be lagging
dramatically behind other advanced countries"? 
This failure has been built upon a lack of commitment, a lack of funding and a lack of clarity of thinking by the Government. The policies announced today are the product of a Government lacking imagination and ambition for our young people, and motivated by prejudice. In no way can the causes of Britain's failures over the past 12 years suddenly become the midwives of success.
Three years ago the Government told us that they had new policies for education. Now they have come back for another start, but the only fresh start for the nation will be a Labour Government who know what they want for our young people and who have the policies and ambitions to put Britain back into the first division of highly trained and highly educated nations.

Mr. Clarke: I am genuinely disappointed that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) could not think of better questions in response to a package of measures that will completely change the framework of vocational and academic qualifications for our 16 to 19-year-olds. We propose a whole new structure for vocational and academic education in further education and sixth-form colleges, and our proposals will change the institutional arrangements for higher education.
The hon. Member for Blackburn says that the Government have run out of ideas. His response to my statement shows that his party has no ideas at all on education or on any of the other public services. The hon. Gentleman touched on what I had already announced—

the establishment of autonomous further education and sixth-form colleges that will be independent of local government—and he was reduced to quoting Mr. MacNamara of Hampshire to justify his party's present position. He says that there is widespread opposition in my party to that proposal. There is not even very much opposition in his party to my proposal. When I first announced to the House our change in policy the hon. Gentleman did not know whether he was in favour or against, just as he did not know and still does not know whether he is in favour or against the pay review body settling the pay of teachers.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked why we are determined to pursue this new autonomous status for further education colleges and sixth-form colleges. He should look to the experience of the polytechnics for which we took the same step three or four years ago. It was a deserved success. The hon. Gentleman is not against that and should not be against this proposal either. That was all that the hon. Gentleman had to say about further education colleges and sixth-form colleges.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about qualifications for people aged from 16 to 18, and again advanced Labour's proposals for an integrated alternative to what we suggest. Labour's approach to increased participation by 16 to 19-year-olds is to produce one broad pattern of qualification for every person and then to set the achievement at such a low level that most people appear to reach it. That is no basis for entering higher education or for raising the standards of eduction or the training of our young people for future employment. We are similarly aiming for much wider participation, while preserving what is best in the existing A-level structure and allowing it to evolve within the principles that I have recommended to SEAC. We are also putting alongside it vocational qualifications of the same quality that will deserve equal esteem.
We are aiming for mass participation in higher education and training, but we shall preserve the important standards that Labour would destroy. People have a clear choice and Labour's alternative should be rejected. I see that the hon. Gentleman's junior shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), nods in agreement when I say that everybody to the age of 16 should take exactly the same basic qualification within whatever they are able to attain.
I think that most people recognise that, to a minor extent from the age of 14, and certainly from the age of 16, people have different aptitudes, abilities and interests in careers. All those abilities must be harnessed. The hundreds of thousands taking A-levels at the moment are good-quality entrants to any university system. We want a wider range of opportunities for other young people so that they can aspire to the same standards and have the same career opportunities and access to higher education.
When the hon. Member for Blackburn dropped his voice he seemed to agree with all my proposals on higher education, despite the fact that it is a fairly dramatic, I dare say radical, change to the institutional arrangements for universities and polytechnics.
The hon. Gentleman then tried to bring in a red herring about ability to pay. I hope that he will not lower the debate on this public service to the level to which it has been lowered on others. My right hon. Friends and I are committed to open access to higher education for everyone who has the ability and willingness to take advantage of it.
We shall not put financial obstacles in their way. The new loan system, coupled with the grant, gives this year's students access to 25 per cent. more support than they had a year ago.
We are opening up access to higher education to people of all backgrounds who are willing to take advantage of it. That we have succeeded in doing so is shown by the increase from the one in eight participation of a decade ago to the one in five now. Our target is that one in three of our young people will go into higher education by the end of the decade. Their admission will be determined by their ability, and by their aptitude in applying themselves to their work, not in any way by their means. We have the ideas for making that expansion in quality. The hon. Gentleman should have the nerve whole-heartedly to support it, because he has no alternative proposals of his own.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there is another important statement after this one, and I have to balance the right and the desire of hon. Members to participate in questions on the statements with those of the 13 hon. Members who have already shown that they wish to speak in the debate on next steps in the civil service. I shall allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.20 pm, and we shall then move on to the next statement. It would only be fair to move on to the debate by 5 pm.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is not one of the most important and significant issues in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement the fact that we are drawing together the blue and the white-collar workers, as polytechnics will now, quite rightly, have the same status as universities so that those who go to polytechnics will be able to gain real qualifications that will allow them to have real jobs and take a real and lasting place in society? Is not this one of the best things that we can do?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with his instinct that, in the past, the division that we have drawn between the blue-collar engineer and the white-collar lawyers was one of the great weaknesses of our education system and, to some extent, of our society as well. Our proposals put under one umbrella of the new diploma those qualifications for young people that are academic and those that are vocational. It puts under the same institutional arrangements the sixth-form colleges, which tend to be academic, and further education colleges, which tend to be vocational. It puts under the same arrangements the polytechnics, which have vocational links, and the universities, which have academic links. Our intention is not to make one homogeneous whole, ending all differences of approach and of admission, but to enable all people to choose between these various paths as they so wish. I hope that our best and brightest young people will take a mixture of vocational and academic courses and choose a combination of academic and career-oriented studies to get themselves to whatever career they wish to aspire to.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In so far as much of what the Secretary of State announced today has long been Liberal Democrat policy, I welcome that. Much that he has announced is important and valuable. In so far as his proposals fall behind ours, we shall press for more. That

includes reform of A-levels and local and democratic control. Every time that we have proposed policies that are closely in line with those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has set out, the response from the Conservative Benches has been, "How do you pay for it? Where will the money come from? How much will it cost?" Let me ask the Secretary of State, "How will he pay for it? Where is the money coming from? How much will it cost? What has been put aside?" When will he be telling the House?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know what has come over the House today. Opposition parties seem not to want to oppose any more when we come forward with packages of this sort. I welcome the Liberal Democrats' endorsement of what I propose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly be dealing with other aspects of training policy, which are also part of the package, but we already have universities and polytechnics on a funding regime that responds to growth in student numbers. So the more successful the policy is, the more expensive it becomes to the taxpayer. Over the past two years, for example, there has been an increase of over 10 per cent. in the funds going into higher education. The increase in funding is largely in response to a successful expansion of the system. We propose to have a similar arrangement for the Further Education Councils. Part of the funding—basic funding—will be part linked to student numbers. As I have said, there is direct linkage between the funding that goes into the system and growth.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: How much?

Mr. Bob Cryer: There is no Treasury approval for a blank cheque.

Mr. Clarke: Well, if we achieve the growth that we are aiming at, funding will increase roughly in line with that growth. We are set on a course considerably to increase real-terms funding in these areas. If our policies are as successful as I believe that they will be in stimulating greater access to further education and higher education, further demands on public funding will follow directly, really, from the arrangements that we are proposing.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ignore the ill-founded whingeing of Opposition Members? How the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) could describe my right hon. and learned Friend's statement as unimaginative and lacking new ideas beggars the imagination. My right hon. and learned Friend has presented one of the most comprehensive education statements that we have ever listened to in this place.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that what he has said about sixth forms, training places and the maintenance of quality of A-levels will be richly applauded in the House and outside? His statement on the abolition of the binary line that separates universities and polytechnics will similarly be warmly welcomed. All in all, the statement builds on the success of the past 12 years.

Mr. Clarke: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Blackburn accused me of educational vandalism this morning before he knew what I was going to announce. He rather toned down his remarks when he heard my pronouncements; we should be grateful for small mercies.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the announcements that I have made on behalf of the Government will be widely welcomed by all those, whom he knows so well, in further education colleges, in the sixth-form world and in higher education. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I welcome the underlying assumption that there will be an expansion of tertiary education? My Conservative opponent fought the 1987 general election on the basis that to set up tertiary colleges in the borough in my constituency was a grave mistake and that tertiary colleges were a mistake. The part of south Leeds that I represent needs a sixth-form college, and it very much needs a tertiary college. Whom do I go to? I cannot go to Leeds city council, because it does not have tertiary institutions. It has normal sixth forms that remain under its control. I cannot go to a funding council, because it will be some time before one is established. Will I be able to press the claims of south Leeds on the Secretary of State? We need money for a sixth-form college. It is vital that we have such a college, and I ask the Secretary of State whether he is now the responsible person.

Mr. Clarke: I dare say that the controversy in Leeds in 1987 was centred on whether to close school sixth forms and go for tertiary colleges. Some local authorities did that, while others kept all their sixth forms. Other local authorities had a mixture. That follows from local authority control. At present, the right hon. Gentleman must pursue Leeds city council, which is responsible for the schools and colleges in its area. If the hon. Member for Blackburn had his way, that would continue to be so for all time. That would mean that everyone in the part of south Leeds that the right hon. Gentleman represents would have to take whatever Leeds city council thought was right for him by way of a structure. I should prefer to see an arrangement whereby individual pupils and parents had the chance of access to a further education college, a sixth-form college, a tertiary college, which combines the two, or a school sixth form. Such a system would respond much more to demands and would ensure that the widest possible range of options was open to pupils.
The existing institutions will be given autonomy. The new Further Education Councils will be responsible for responding to demand and ensuring that there is an adequate provision of places for all young people wanting access to further education throughout the country. We must legislate before we can set up the councils, and no doubt the Labour party will oppose their establishment if it follows the line taken today by the hon. Member for Blackburn. In the meantime, I can only advise the right hon. Gentleman to continue to put his views to Leeds city council.

Mr. David Madel: I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend in restating the Robbins principle that everyone who is capable of benefiting from higher education should have access to it. As to the changes affecting colleges of further education, will local education authorities have any role to play in the future development of those colleges' curriculums?

Mr. Clarke: We are restating the Robbins principle, and I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks that we are right to do so. Experience since those proposals were made all those years ago shows that access to higher education can be expanded at a considerable rate without damaging the academic standards that institutions achieve. Our policy reaffirms the Robbins principle by encouraging expansion, to provide higher education for the maximum number of young people while maintaining standards. Labour's policy is to expand but never mind the standards, because it might be too difficult to go in that direction.
Until we establish the new councils, local authorities will remain wholly responsible for further and sixth-form education in their areas. Thereafter, they can make their contribution, along with all other interested bodies, to the debate that will no doubt continue about the evolution of the contents of our new diploma and the nature of A-levels and national vocational qualifications—NVQs. However, those will largely be determined by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, in respect of examinations and assessments, and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which will be answerable to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in respect of NVQs.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State accept the congratulations of my hon. Friends on these Benches on the Government's decision to establish the Higher Education Funding Councils? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that some members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts advanced such a proposal in the early 1980s? It is good to see the Government at last taking their advice.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the budget for the university of Wales will in future form part of the Welsh Office budget and will be distributed by the Higher Education Funding Council in Wales?
We welcome also the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal to open up the sixth form as part of adult continuing education. Will the Secretary of State expand on those parts of the White Paper that refer specifically to adult education and comment also on the status of the Open university? Does the fact that it will in future be part of the funding mechanism for England mean that its remit will be in any way reduced in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

Mr. Clarke: When I announced the teachers' pay review body, the only unqualified support that I received, without any mealy-mouthed words, came from the Welsh nationalist spokesman. I am grateful that we again appear to be in total agreement. That has made me so sympathetic towards Welsh aspirations for individualism that I can confirm that the funding of Welsh higher education and further education will in future be wholly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. As I said, there will be a separate council for funding in Wales.
I have announced that the Open university will come within the proposed funding arrangements for universities and polytechnics as a whole. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not reduce the Open university's commitment in either Wales or Scotland—and it is extremely important that it should not do so.

Mr. George Walden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accept my congratulations on grasping the nettle of post-16 education and on extending vocational opportunities in, a way that does not downgrade academic values? Is my right hon. and learned Friend struck, as I am, by the fact that while the Government have in the past few weeks been giving teachers a better pay deal and extending opportunities for those aged over 16, the Opposition have been calling for the demolition of A-levels and of grant-maintained schools, to be replaced by an anti-intellectual, egalitarian mush?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of a package of measures that has indeed been driven on by the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to educational policy. I am not surprised at Labour's attitude, because the only ideas it appears to have are to impose an egalitarian mush in respect of qualifications and to defend local government bureaucracy and control of every aspect of the education system, and the teachers' right to strike. That seems to me to be the sum total of Labour's education policies.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that his cantankerous reference to grumbling university lecturers is reminiscent of a briefing that the Department issued before Christmas, which claimed that there was no need to increase university lecturers' salaries by very much because there is no shortage of applicants for university posts? When will the Government recognise that our education system needs universities that house departments which are centres of excellence, and that that can be achieved only if they are able to recruit and retain some of the most gifted people in our society? Is it not clear that those changes in administration will fail until the Government recognise that they have to spend more money per student as well as increasing the number of students, which requires a lot more money to be spent on higher education?

Mr. Clarke: I deliberately included in my statement a sentence that congratulated university academics on what they have achieved in recent years, in expanding the number of students, maintaining quality and keeping down unit costs. Because I realised that some university academics might wince at my saying that straightforwardly, I conceded that they have some grumbles. If the hon. Gentleman reads my statement, he will realise that I was congratulating the universities on what they have achieved. This year, the finance of universities has increased by about 10 per cent. Of course they have other non-pay matters to settle, but I am satisfied that, with reasonable discussions, they can make proper provision for their staff this year. It is up to them to negotiate with the Association of University Teachers and perhaps to face up to the fact that some universities are quite well placed and will make a reasonable pay award this year, whereas others are in difficulties and might need to be more restrained. That is a matter for them and not for me. I accept that there are obviously resource implications and we have been putting in the resources as universities have expanded. I do not accept that unit costs should increase, as the hon. Gentleman said. The need for efficiency in the use of public money, to deliver the policy objectives that I have outlined, is as important in higher education as it is in every other aspect of education.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is the Secretary of State aware that this statement will be welcomed widely because we are preserving academic excellence in A-levels, which give us the shortest university degree course of a legitimate standard in the world, while expanding vocational education, where we have been behind our competitors? There is no doubt that the balance of those two will be fruitful for the future of this country.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, with all his expertise on this subject. I agree that our higher education system is one of the best in the world and that a higher proportion of our young people obtain good degrees under that system than in almost any other country in the developed world, and that we must maintain that. We must get right the balance that he has described. Our proposals get that balance right and those of our opponents' would destroy it.

Mr. Jim Sillars: May I give not a grudging but a warm welcome to the decision to set up a separate Higher Education Funding Council for Scotland and to place the Scottish universities under the responsibility of the Scottish Office, which represents a significant conversion by the Conservative party to policies that some of us have argued for more than 20 years? May I raise with him paragraph 48 of the higher education White Paper which seems to recognise the different structure of education in Scotland? Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to vary or abolish the student loans system, which is having an adverse effect on the four-year honours degree course in Scotland?

Mr. Clarke: I always say to those on the nationalist Benches, whether I am disowning responsibility on questions on Welsh or Scottish schools or whatever, that we have a devolved system of government in this country. It is true that we have taken a further step, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have separate funding arrangements for higher education, as he already has for further education. Nevertheless, the student loan scheme is a United Kingdom system. The Student Loans Company has its headquarters in Glasgow and I recently visited the city to see it. It would not be open to my right hon. Friend to depart from that system, unless he introduced separate legislation. We both believe that the student loan scheme is a big improvement on financial support for students in this country and we have no intention of going back on it.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is it not self-evident that any large-scale expansion of higher education has to be based on plurality, and is not a degree of co-ordination needed, which has been lacking before? Is not the approach that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced today much more sensible than trying to force people down one particular path which is simply a mish-mash of everything?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that under the system that he has announced, which I applaud, there are sufficient arrangements for people who want to change courses in mid-stream?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. As we design the components of the new advanced diploma—A-levels and AS-levels, or NVQs, or a mixture of the two—we should leave room for those


who, after 16, decide that they have made a mistake and want to change courses. In my letter to SEAC, and in our proposals, we have encouraged credit transfer, credit accumulation and modular approaches to courses if they can sensibly be developed without compromising the essential qualities of A-levels or a distinctive NVQ. In my letter, I have asked SEAC to do further work on that matter. We need to make room for 16 or 17-year-olds who decide to change courses because they made a mistaken choice after statutory school age.

Mr. Peter Hardy: No hon. Member would deny that the more controversial parts of the Secretary of State's statement are imaginative. However, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, although they may be imaginative, the real test will come in a few years when we ascertain whether they are intelligent? Does he think it intelligent that a common thread of criticism of the role of education authorities ran through his statement? Whether they are Labour or Conservative controlled is immaterial.
Does the Secretary of State think that his hon. Friends' echoes of derision for the role of local authorities—even those with Conservative leaders—are reasonable? Does he accept that his policies will still depend on the co-operation of local authorities, which he clearly despises?

Mr. Clarke: I was accused by the hon. Member for Blackburn of failing to introduce imaginative proposals. What matters is not attitudes but that the policies are practical and sensible and will expand opportunities for many young people.
My remarks about local authority control are not pointless criticisms of local government but build on our experience of removing polytechnics from local government control. In many areas, local government is changing to an enabling role and away from the day-to-day, detailed management of countless different services. That is a wider issue, but there is no doubt that, in further and higher education, the governing bodies of each polytechnic—most of which will become universities—further education colleges and sixth-form colleges, as autonomous bodies, can make a better job of judging priorities, managing the institutions and expanding in response to local demands than local government did in the past.
We are moving to a new system whereby we shall turn our backs on bureaucracy and rely more on local initiatives and enthusiasm in the management of individual institutions. We believe that that delivers better and more responsive public services.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the standards of A-levels will be maintained and, where necessary, strengthened? Conservative Members do not want to fall into the same trap as the Labour party, which condemns excellence, supports the erosion of the A-level system and promotes its total abolition.

Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. To those who say that the course of study at A-level should be broadened, we reaffirm that we shall continue, as we are successfully doing now, to encourage more AS-levels—subjects that are taken to the same standard as A-level, but cover half the range. Two A-levels and two AS-levels can

be taken by someone who might find three A-levels too narrow. In that way, we shall maintain standards and achieve the same high-quality entry to our universities, as I am sure the young men and women now sitting their A-levels will provide when they go to university next year.
It would be a disaster to approach that system in a way that damaged academic standards. Few higher education establishments in the world would not envy the intake from our sixth forms and colleges. Those students achieve good-quality A-levels after two years of rigorous study.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the biggest barriers to young people and adults attending full-time or, especially, part-time courses for A-levels or similar qualifications necessary for university entrance are the lack of funds provided to local education authorities, the disparity between different parts of the country in the payment of discretionary grants and the inability of young people to obtain income support from the Department of Social Security? They are the biggest barriers to expanding further education for academically qualified youngsters, capable though they may be. What will the proposals in the statement do about that?

Mr. Clarke: The argument that growth is being restrained by the Government's lack of funding is best answered by the figures. I have already mentioned that one in five 18 and 19-year-olds are in higher education compared with one in eight 10 years ago. Six out of 10 16-year-olds now stay on at school compared with four out of 10 when the Government came into office, and three out of four 17-year-olds receive education and training compared with two out of four when we came to office.
The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that the background is already one of sustained expansion of academic, educational and training opportunities. The evidence belies his claim that the Government are starving the system of funds so that access is restrained. By our deeds, one should judge us. We have expanded opportunities rapidly and we shall do so yet further.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituents will welcome the statement? Does he recall that the Labour-controlled council tried to abolish sixth forms in my constituency, which led directly to a 6 per cent. swing to the Conservatives in the most recent local elections? Will my right hon. and learned Friend find a way of short-circuiting money to those sixth forms and especially around those councils that have used their financial mismanagement to starve them of funds?

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend defends the popular sixth forms in his constituency. Already, under the arrangements that we tend to approve, sixth forms are treated attractively. We aim to ensure that good sixth forms in schools are protected and will continue to flourish provided that they respond to a real need in the local community. New ones should open when the local community so desires. I share my hon. Friend's opinion on the contrast that can be drawn between our approach of encouraging individual choice and allowing sixth forms to continue and that of those in the Labour party who sometimes wish a local bureaucracy to impose a pattern on the local community as it thinks best.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The Secretary of State will recognise the wide agreement on the need to improve the parity of esteem between academic: and vocational subjects to break down the status divide that has bedevilled the English and Welsh education system.
Does the Secretary of State also understand that his response today will be seen as a lost opportunity, particularly on the qualification system he has proposed? All the evidence from the Government's Higginson report, the CBI, teachers' organisations and a wide range of institutions representing higher education demands changes in 18-plus education, but the Government have resisted the opportunity and missed the boat on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has come up not with the radical change that is needed, but with an approach that will exacerbate the divide between the academic and the vocational. When the small print of the statement is understood by Consdervative hon. Members, they will fully realise that the new diploma is spatchcocked on to the existing jungle of qualifications.
The Government have let down a generation of young people. At the next election the Government will not have the opportunity of implementing their proposals but the Labour party will implement its proposals, which are in line with the qualification system's needs and will break down the divide by giving that system the radical approach it so desperately needs.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously argue that what we have announced today does not bridge the divide between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications. He and his hon. Friends think that that job cannot be done properly without scrapping A-levels. What we have announced certainly bridges the divide. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends believe that A-levels must be scrapped. They make the case that A-levels are elitist, that only 30 per cent. of pupils can do them. The Labour party and others suggest that there should be a much broader approach. But it is an approach that would take all pupils to a much lower standard. In the education world, there are people who say that, in those circumstances, a four-year degree course would be necessary to make up for the lack of attainment before entry to higher education. We are retaining the best of A-levels, and combining them with good-quality vocational qualifications, within one framework that will give them equal esteem. That is a very superior approach. The Labour party is driven by old shibboleths and by a continuing desire to get rid of anything that it regards as elitist, as marking out high ability in the education system.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the next statement, I will try to give some priority to those hon. Members who have not been called on this one.

Education and Training

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the plans for which I am responsible, which are set out in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century", announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
This White Paper will transform the prospects for Britain's 16 to 19-year-olds. The proposals will mean that, for the first time, all young people in the country up to the age of 19 will be encouraged and entitled to continue in education or training—or both—which will take them to higher levels of qualifications than ever before. And the artificial barriers between the academic and the vocational, which have bedevilled us for so long, will be swept away.
The plans in this White Paper represent a clear recognition of the importance of preparing our young people for the world of work, and the priority we attach to it.
First, we plan to attract many more young people into training by giving a training credit to every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education. Training credits are a new way of promoting youth training. The credit puts buying power in the hands of young people. It encourages them to take up their entitlement to vocational education, and to take full advantage of training, and of the opportunity to qualify with a national vocational qualification at level 2 or higher.
Credits are now being offered to 10 per cent. of school leavers in pilot areas. With the experience of these pilots to build on, we will progressively extend credits from April 1993. Within the lifetime of the next Parliament, we aim to offer a training credit to every 16 and 17-year-old in the country who is leaving full-time education.
Secondly, we shall also extend across the whole country the compacts approach to bringing together young people and employers in raising attainment at school and college. At present, compacts are working highly successfully in urban programme areas and similar areas in Scotland and Wales. We shall invite training and enterprise councils, in partnership with local education authorities and others, to extend this approach to all parts of the country. We shall provide financial support to start compacts—matching the support they will attract from private sector and local authority sources.
I turn next to vocational qualifications. A great deal of progress has been made in developing and extending practical, job-related qualifications. Our proposals will create a structure of qualifications that offers the breadth and choice that young people and their employers need, and in which academic and vocational qualifications will have equal status.
National vocational qualifications will be available for all major sectors of employment by the end of next year. We are inviting the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to work with others to develop more general job-related qualifications, within the NVQ framework, suitable for young people who want a broad preparation for employment. We shall promote equality of status for academic and vocational qualifications by developing the new system of ordinary and advanced diplomas that my right hon. and learned Friend described in his statement.
Our plans in the White Paper—especially training credits—will increase the importance of high-quality career services, linked closely to employers. I have been consulting about ways of organising the careers service for its future tasks. There is considerable support for my proposal that training and enterprise councils should be involved as partners with local education authorities in overseeing the operation of the service locally.
We shall encourage local education authorities to work with TECs in partnership for this purpose. We shall provide financial support to start such partnerships where they are proposed. We intend also to legislate so as to open up a range of other options, including direct TEC management of the careers service and contracting out to the private sector. We shall increase investment in the training of careers service advisory staff and in careers libraries in schools.
Employer commitment is essential if young people are to be well prepared for the demands of working life. The measures that I have announced today will give employers, through TECs, extended roles in training credits, compacts, and the careers service. My right hon. and learned Friend's proposed reforms of further education will include measures to involve TECs closely in the new funding arrangements.
The range of proposals in the White Paper will provide greater opportunities for young people to unlock their potential, a much wider choice in how they develop their talents, and a strengthened support system to guide their progress. These proposals will open doors for all our young people, whatever their background and their aspirations. They will strengthen the foundation of skills that the economy will need in future. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: First, I shall deal with some of the matters with which we are already familiar. The Secretary of State knows that we support compacts, but we would want to see how the pilot schemes for credits progress. Will he state clearly that no young people will be prevented from pursuing the career of their choice by inadequately financed credits? Will credits be a cash-limited voucher or a genuine entitlement to train, with the credit varying to meet the cost of that training? Will he comment on the fact that there have been real-terms cuts of some £400 million in youth training in the past few years? That cannot be the best way to launch a new training credits scheme.
As for proposals on the careers service, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the careers service is vital to improve training. He said that he intends to legislate for an option of contracting out the careers service to the private sector. What does he mean by that? We vigorously oppose any attempt to privatise the careers service or to allow it to opt out of local education authority control. As for a halfway house of part TEC, part local education authority control, will he guarantee that independent and impartial careers advice will be open to young people?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the client of the careers service must be the young person concerned, not the employer or company? Will he therefore accept that, in involving the training and enterprise councils, he must guard against the risk of a

conflict between the interests of employers and companies and those of the young person? That is precisely what the independent careers service is designed to guard against.
Will the Secretary of State outline much more clearly the rules that will apply in this new partnership, and say how the new system will work? In particular, who will take ultimate responsibility for the critical decisions that affect young people?
Have not the Secretary of State and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science admitted many of the criticisms that the Labour party and others have made of the divisions between education and training in the past few years? The Secretary of State for Employment has accepted—there is now agreement—that there is a division between standards and status in vocational and academic qualifications; that that division is harmful; and that it is imperative to remove it to improve the performance of the economy and provide opportunities for our young people? That much we can agree on. Is not the difference between what the Government have proposed today and the Opposition's position that the Government believe that it is possible to retain a separate and divided system of qualifications, and still abolish the difference in status, whereas we believe that abolishing the separate and divided system of qualifications is an essential part of abolishing the divided status?

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: That is levelling down.

Mr. Blair: No, it is nothing to do with levelling down.
Will the Secretary of State confirm, because I do not think that some Conservative Members realise it, that the advanced diploma does not replace the existing divided system of qualifications, but is superimposed on it? The diploma is a layer of qualification on the existing system, not an attempt to deal with the real problem—the division of the system itself. That is why the proposal bears all the hallmarks, not of the bold and radical step that the Secretary of State presented, but of an uneasy compromise between two Ministers in two different Departments with the essential divisions remaining intact.
I say to the Secretary of State for Employment that, if all that were required to achieve parity of esteem were ministerial words, the Business and Technician Education Council or the City and Guilds would already have achieved those results. Despite their attempts, excellent though many of them are, in the real world the problem that everyone recognises is that people go for the vocational route when they fail the academic route. That system, based on failure rather than achievement, is at the heart of low staying-on rates, low participation, low opportunities for progress and low attainment.
There cannot be equivalence of esteem while there are different styles, structures, contents and modes of assessment. If we do not deal with those differences, we do not deal effectively with parity of esteem. The Labour party believes that a divided system of qualifications will never produce a unified status of achievement. That is why we have proposed an entirely different idea from that of the Government—a unified system of qualifications. That is not just the Labour party's policy, but the policy of the Royal Society, the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges and many other organisations.
One of the reasons for proposing integration between vocational and academic qualifications is that it allows


transfer between those two systems. How will that transfer operate under the Secretary of State's advanced diploma? If that transfer will not operate—as I believe it will not —why is he simply perpetuating the irredeemable choice at 16 for either the vocational or academic route, which is at the heart of the problem?
We believe that the problem required vision and leadership, which have been lacking from today's statements. We believe that our young people have enormous ability, but that we waste it through outdated examination systems and old-fashioned structures which have no place in any country preparing itself for the 21st century. Our young people have the talent, but they are hindered by a Government that neither believe in them nor are prepared to help them. In order to have that help, young people will have to wait for this party to take office.

Mr. Howard: First of all, I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about our proposals for compacts. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman has the temerity even to mention funding, bearing in mind the facts that we are spending two and a half times as much in real terms as that being spent on training when the last Labour Government left office, that 350,000 young people are receiving training on Government schemes compared with 6,000 when the Labour Government left office, and that every time the hon. Gentleman pops up to mention funding he is promptly disowned by the shadow Chief Secretary, as happened most recently on television yesterday.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to acknowledge the importance of independence and impartiality in the careers service. I readily do that. They are important. I believe that the conflicts to which the hon. Gentleman referred as a result of the training and enterprise councils are not likely to give rise to serious problems. We had an overwhelmingly favourable response in our consultation exercise both from training and enterprise councils and from local education authorities about the proposal for partnership.
The hon. Gentleman referred to legislating for opting out. The present position is that, even if a local education authority would like to contract out the delivery of the careers service, it is unable to do so. We shall legislate to enable it to do so if it wishes and to enable the partnership between the TEC and LEA to do so if it wishes; we shall see how that develops over the fulness of time. If, as may well prove the case, that model proves successful, it would be right to have reserve powers to ensure that it becomes the normal way in which to deliver the careers service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to vocational qualification. I can only conclude from his remarks that he has completely misunderstood the effects of our proposals for a diploma. We are not dividing, or persisting in the divide between, academic and vocational qualifications. We are bringing the two together, and bringing together the best of the two without abolishing A-levels, which is the Labour party's only policy in the area. The Labour party is the enemy of excellence; it always has been and it always will be.
The hon. Gentleman was disingenuous in his remarks about training credits. He said that he would see how our pilots were developing and examine training credits. However, he knows full well that there is a complete antithesis and contradiction between our approach of credits, which is a voluntary approach that gives young people the opportunity to buy training for themselves, and his approach of taking the big stick of compulsion, and

forbidding young people to have jobs without training while allowing and encouraging them to go on the dole without training. That is the Labour party's policy, and it is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman was too ashamed of it to mention it this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind hon. Members about the pressure on the subsequent debate. I will allow questions on the statement until 5.5 pm. Then I regret that we must move on. I ask hon. Members to put brief questions.

Sir Norman Fowler: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his proposals on training credits and on his other fundamentally important proposals? Does he agree that one of the outstanding successes of the Government has been the introduction of compacts throughout the country? Does he also agree that that signifies a real revolution in training, in that the worlds of education and of industry have now come close together, which is fundamentally important for young people?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to his work during his time in the Department, both on compacts and on training credits. He did much of the spadework on that. He is entirely right: it is one of the Government's great achievements, now recognised on all sides, to have brought together the world of work and the world of education. It was not always so. When we first proposed the technical and vocational education initiative, the Leader of the Opposition went around the country denouncing it as a scheme fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water. I am delighted that the Labour party appears to have learnt something from the year's experience.

Mr. James Wallace: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, we substantially support the package presented today. However, I am sure that the House agrees that changing institutions and arrangements is no substitute for restoring the cuts in funding in recent years.
Will the Secretary of State answer the question put by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on training credits? He asked that the credit should not be a cash limit on the course of training sought by a young person. Although the Secretary of State makes a persuasive case for the voluntary approach, what advice would he give a young person who finds himself or herself in a job with an employer who is not amenable to that young person pursuing a course of training?

Mr. Howard: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I must say that one of the great advantages of the training credit is that it can be used in a number of ways, and not simply and solely with the employer. If a young person has an employer who is not amenable to providing training, he can use the credit in a number of other ways, such as to purchase open learning, which is becoming increasingly important in the acquisition of qualifications, and in which this country leads the world.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am happy to confirm that the account on the training credit will not be


a limit. It will be topped up by employers or by the training and enterprise councils to reflect the full value of the training concerned.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my warm congratulations on the measures that he has announced? Will he accept that Conservative Members warmly welcome the bridging and equalisation between the more vocational structure and the purely academic structure, with the raising of standards of careers qualifications? That is a great step forward for thousands of people who will be able to raise their standards.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is entirely right. Far too often in the past young people pursued vocational qualifications because they had failed, or were thought to be likely to fail, academic qualifications. That should become a thing of the past. We want to encourage true parity of esteem for vocational qualifications so that young people who are more suited by their abilities and aptitudes to pursue vocational qualifications should be able to do so to a high standard. The proposals will deliver that.

Mr. John Battle: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report on young people, benefits and training, published by the Children's Society on behalf of the Coalition of Young People on Social Security? That report points out that 45,000 young people are currently without jobs, youth training or income support because, although the Government may have promised a youth training scheme, they have cut income support, totally undermining the youth training guarantee. How will the training credits resolve that problem?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Far from undermining the youth training guarantee, the fact that young people are encouraged to take a place on youth training if they wish to receive benefit reinforces the importance and usefulness of the guarantee. The hon. Gentleman has his facts entirely upside down.

Mr. Michael Alison: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the generous, imaginative and skilfully purpose-designed scheme, which focuses on the most vital component in our society—the seedcorn of our national future?
May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the phenomenon that there are still some youngsters who manage to slip through into their first job—and others will do so in the future—without having any preliminary training? If they have the misfortune to be made redundant early in their working life, is it possible for the scheme to be applied retrospectively to those of a certain age group, so that they do not finally miss the bus? I speak on that with some feeling against the background of substantial redundancies, about which I have written to my right hon. and learned Friend, at Middlebrook Mushrooms in my constituency.

Mr. Howard: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about the case that has arisen and about that group of people. Many of them would be entitled to the credit. It is to meet the needs of the first group identified by my right hon. Friend—those who have slipped through

into jobs without training—that the entire proposal for credits is designed. From the pilots, all the signs are that the scheme is proving extremely successful, and I intend to build on that success in the years ahead.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Can the Secretary of State ensure that there will be further consultation with careers masters on this matter? Can he also ensure that the responsibility in Wales comes cleanly under the Welsh Office and that there is no split in responsibility? Will he clarify whether the £1,000 referred to as a typical voucher may be extended to £1,000 in a second year for training courses that may go on for more than one year?

Mr. Howard: On the last point, it can certainly be extended in that way. I reiterate what I said earlier—that the face value of the voucher does not represent the whole of the entitlement of the young person. Very often, a voucher with a face value of £1,000 or £1,500 will be able to be used to buy training worth up to £4,000, and the balance will of course be found by the employer or the training and enterprise council. The voucher is merely the first part of the entitlement.
Responsibility for the careers service in Wales will continue exactly as it is at the moment. We have consulted widely about the arrangements for the careers service, and if there are any further views or representations that careers officers wish to make, of course we will wish to take those into account.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with the announcements that are made today, the Government are committing themselves to harnessing the energy of school leavers, whatever their background and whatever their ability, whether it be vocational or educational? Will provision be made within the training credits scheme to give those children who leave and who are less able the opportunity to use that credit for further education in basic education—reading, writing and arithmetic?

Mr. Howard: Where that is necessary, arrangements can be made within the training credits scheme for provision of that kind to be made available to the young person. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the proposals. They represent a landmark in the development of opportunities for our young people. It is a pity that that cannot be recognised to a greater extent on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does not the Secretary of State acknowledge that fine phrases such as "true parity of esteem" are very much part of Opposition Members' fundamental philosophy and belief? It does not stand up to a very much detailed examination coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, any more than from the Prime Minister talking about a classless society, when we know, and all the evidence shows, that people in our society with academic qualifications on the one hand and a vocation on the other do not receive true parity of esteem throughout their working lives. The gaps between their incomes, for example, get wider and wider throughout their working lives.
One example of the Secretary of State's real commitment to true parity of esteem would be his commitment, as it is our commitment, to a national minimum wage which would at least put a little bit of beef


behind his words and recognise the fact that everyone in our community is esteemed and valued and that no one should fall out of the net.

Mr. Howard: I wish the hon. Gentleman could see the face of the hon. Member for Sedgefield as he asked that question. I had imposed a self-denying ordinance on myself this afternoon. I was not going to mention the national minimum wage, despite the fact that only today the Fabian Society, no less, has produced a pamphlet in which it estimates the number of jobs that it would destroy at 800,000—not quite right, not quite accurate, not the nearly 2 million that it would in fact destroy, but at least we are making progress when the Fabian Society recognises that that would be the case. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs is a way to improve opportunities, he would have great difficulty in persuading the electorate of that.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Both Secretaries of State should take no lectures from the Opposition about the quality of education or training. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is well aware that most local education authorities in this country are controlled by the Labour party, so they must take the blame for low standards. Is he aware that, where a local education authority controlled by the Conservative party seeks to tackle the question of vocational studies such as through magnet schools, the Labour party is the first to rail against the proposal?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the views of the chairmen of the TECs that perhaps, in the long term, training should come within the powers of the Department of Education and Science to bring the whole together?

Mr. Howard: On my hon. Friend's last point, the views of employers as expressed through the TECs and through the Department of Employment have made a very significant contribution to training and, indeed, to education over the past few years. My hon. Friend made an important point about the influence of local education authorities, and it is well known. League table after league table has pointed out that Labour local education authorities spend huge amounts for little attainment and Conservative local education authorities, for much less spending, get the results which the people who live in those areas expect.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Secretary of State not accept that, despite all his fine words, the fact remains that people will have no confidence in them, given that 60 per cent. of trainees now come out of his Government's training schemes with no qualifications at all? He has cut and cut training provision in west Wales, for example, by half over the past year. Compared with all our foreign competitors, we are now in the worst possible position in terms of training provision.

Mr. Tony Favell: Another lie.[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I heard that word "liar", which I hope would never be mentioned in this Chamber, the hon. Member should withdraw it, please.

Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. I am not certain who said it, but I hope that we will not hear that word in this Chamber.

Mr. Favell: I apologise for having said it. but the party opposite is trying to protect—

Mr. Speaker: No qualification, please—just the apology will suffice.

Mr. Hain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of this country will see all those fine words for what they are—an attempt to cover up the reality of lack of training provision in this country—and that, like the Secretary of State for Education and Science, he is providing for a nation of morons who have forgotten how many O-levels they have?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's facts are entirely wrong. Of those who complete youth training, 67 per cent. obtain a vocational qualification. The hon. Gentleman's charge is a quite unwarranted slur both on the calibre of our young people and on the calibre of the training that they receive.

Mr. David Martin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that employers will welcome what he has said in his statement, as they have to find the wages of those who apply for jobs after having been educated and trained? They have been crying out for years for improvements. The proposals, combined with the proposals of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, will prove most imaginative for the future. Far from showing that the Government have run out of ideas, the proposals are well beyond any of the ideas that would ever be adopted by the Opposition.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right, and I am sure that the proposals will be warmly welcomed by employers who recognise full well the importance of having properly trained, properly equipped and properly educated young people leaving our schools and institutions of further and higher education.

Mr. Bob Cryer: What increased expenditure has been estimated to cover the improved and extended training credits? Will there be a parallel increase in the number of discretionary grants available to students in vocational education provided by local authorities?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that training credits will not be available to be spent at the nationwide network of skill centres that he inherited? Will he confirm that they have been given away to a handful of civil servants, together with suitcases full of money, in a scandalous misappropriation and misuse of taxpayers' funds, which has meant that a nationwide system of skill centres has been broken up and closed down and its teachers sacked?

Mr. Howard: The additional resources that will be made available for training credits amount to £14 million in the year 1993–94 and £35 million in the year 1994–95, and the total resources available to training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies for the new credits in 1994–95 will amount to £200 million. Discretionary grants are a matter for local education authorities, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He has asked questions about


skill centres many times before. They have been comprehensively answered, but I dare say that he will continue to pursue his vendetta on that point.

Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Labour party rejects excellence, rejects A-levels and rejects diplomas? Does he further agree that it has produced a new A-level and new diploma which has been passed by the Leader of the Opposition called "lying in Monmouth?"

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard over the weekend that that word was being bandied about. In this Chamber, we keep our standards. I hope that hon. Members will not make charges of that nature against other hon. Members.

Mr. Howard: There is an important point behind my hon. Friend's question. When the Labour party talks about parity of esteem, it means lowering parity of esteem. When we talk about parity of esteem, we mean maintaining high standards for both academic and vocational education.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a long-term sceptic about and opponent of taking the Scottish universities, and especially their science faculties, out of the British university system, may I ask about the financing of Scottish education? At all levels—those for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible and those for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible —the Scots have an extra number of students over and above England. Now that the responsibility is to be given to the Scottish Office, will the financing be pro rata on the basis of numbers or on the basis of population? What does one say to a lecturer in the biological sciences at the university of Edinburgh? Is his career still as safe and good in Edinburgh as it was before today's proposals were made? And what is—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Dalyell: —to be done about Edinburgh university's desperate financial position, which has forced it to sell its treasures such as the Audubon book?

Mr. Howard: I can confirm that the funding of the Scottish institutions will continue to be linked to the number of students. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts the other more specific questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, far from what the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) suggested, the announcement today about training credits is bold and imaginative and will be widely welcomed by many young people as an extension of their personal choice and opportunities? Is not the announcement a refreshing difference from the policies of the Labour party, which are old-fashioned and out of date on this as on so many other matters, and are based on compulsion and dragooning young people?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was disappointed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). I thought that he would allow me to pay tribute to the Welsh education system, to which I owe

so much, but instead he engaged in a characteristic Neath whinge. I say that because Neath was well beaten by Llanelli in the Welsh rugby cup final. My hon. Friend is right to identify the merits of the approach that we have adopted. I dare say that, in time, as in so many other matters, those merits will eventually be recognised by the Labour party.

Mr. Bowen Wells: May I congratulate both my right hon. and learned Friends on the thoughtful and imaginative proposals put before the House today? Are not the Opposition strangely out of touch with what is going on in our schools today? Do they not realise that craft design and technology courses are over-subscribed in all our best schools, and that such courses naturally lead on to a mixture of A-levels and vocational qualifications? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, by retaining A-levels as a standard of excellence and moving vocational qualifications up to that standard, we are making certain that standards are maintained? Therefore, we are seeking to create a system of excellence and to make great attainment available to our people, whereas the Labour party would like to level us all down to a lower standard.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend accept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long question—with not much of a question in it either.

Mr. Wells: I have waited a long time, and I should like to put my last sentence.

Mr. Speaker: Put it, please, but it is at the expense of the hon. Member's hon. Friends.

Mr. Wells: My last sentence is: will training credits be available for studying A-levels as well as for the higher grant diplomas?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify excellence as the hallmark of the Government's approach to these and other matters. The training credits are intended for training, not for pursuit of A-level courses, and they will be available for vocational qualifications.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the twin statements will be widely welcomed by the worlds of education and work, in which people will be extraordinarily puzzled by the reaction of the Labour party, which seems to be in favour of no jobs without training, but nevertheless has a policy of unemployment with no training? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement will provide great opportunities? Will he confirm that that opportunity will be extended to disabled people who need training so that they too can benefit from what should be the golden years of opportunity ahead?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to give him the assurance for which he asks. Certainly, those who have special needs will be entitled to training credits. I am sure that they will make good use of the opportunities that training credits will provide.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will both my right hon. and learned Friends accept congratulations on the concept of the advanced diploma? Will it be a pass/fail


document or, as I hope, will there be levels of pass, including ones which indicate excellence and ones which indicate perhaps not quite such a high attainment?

Mr. Howard: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the national record of achievement, which has escaped notice so far this afternoon. It has been issued to 1·3 million people in a short period of time. It will enable the performance and qualifications that people have achieved to be set out in full.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the presentation of Bills first.

BILLS PRESENTED

MARINE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. John Bowis, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Toby Jesse! and Mr. Ron Leighton, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the reporting of marine accident investigations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN

Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to establish a democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Wales dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens; to establish fundamental human rights within that Commonwealth; to lower the voting age to 16 years and to make other provision with respect to elections, including equal representation for women; to prescribe a constitutional oath; to establish a Commonwealth Parliament consisting of the House of Commons and the House of the People and to make provision for the term of a Parliament and for legislative and other procedure; to establish the office of President, and a Council of State, and to prescribe the powers of each; to provide for the formation of governments; to amend the law relating to official information, the armed forces and the security services; to make fresh provision for the participation of Britain in the United Nations Organisation and the European Communities; to make the basing of foreign forces in Britain dependent upon the approval of the House of Commons; to make new provision with respect to the judicial system and to establish a National Legal Service; to set up national Parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales; to amend the law relating to local government, the district auditor and the accountability of police forces; to end the constitutional status of the Crown and to make certain consequential provision; to abolish the House of Lords and the Privy Council, to end the recognition in law of personal titles, and to provide for the acknowledgement of service to the community; to disestablish the Church of England, abolish the offence of blasphemy, and to provide for equality under the law for all religions and beliefs; to end British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland; to provide for a Constitution and for constitutional amendment; and to make transitional and related provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Mr. Speaker: Now, what is the point of order?

Mr Cryer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I called during the statement the hon. Member and all the hon. Members who now wish to raise points of order . However, I also drew attention to the fact that there was great pressure on the subsequent debate.

Mr. Cryer: It is not about that.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it takes time from the hon. Member's colleagues.

Mr. Cryer: It is a very important subject, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any application for a statement about the Government either activating existing legislation for the control of dangerous dogs or introducting new legislation? There has been a serious accident in Bradford in which a little six-year-old girl has been savagely attacked by a pit bull terrier. It is a subject on which I hoped the Government would seek your permission to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any intimation that the Government wish to make a statement. It seems to me that it is a matter that should be raised in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This may be the point of order that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wishes to raise. A White Paper has been issued today on further education in Scotland. The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked questions which the Secretary of State for Employment was clearly unable to answer because they were on Scottish matters. We are constantly reminded by the Conservative party, and indeed by you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a Parliament of the United Kingdom. Have you had any explanation of why there was not a separate statement about Scottish matters?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any intimation, but I am sure that that will have been heard by those responsible.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: On the same matter?

Mr. Dalyell: It is the same matter. The Secretary of State for Employment correctly said that the questions that I asked had to be answered by the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is a vital matter, which particularly affects the lives of many English people as well as Scots in the Scottish universities. It especially affects the great science departments of the universities of Edinburgh and of Glasgow. In those circumstances—if the Leader of the House was present, my request would be within his hearing—can we have a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: The Whip is on the Bench. I gave the hon. Member an opportunity to put his question on the statement. I could not have done more than that today.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. Could you advise Back-Bench Members how we can get the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the outrageous savaging of the little girl in Bradford? Public opinion and, it would seem, the local press is way ahead of the Home Secretary. The Yorkshire Post mounted a


campaign, which I and many of my colleagues support, hours before the latest outrage. We feel that the public deserve some protection from these dangerous animals.

Mr. Speaker: I say again that I had anticipated that there might be a bid to have this matter raised. It was not raised with me earlier today, but I am sure that the subject should be debated in the House at some time. It might be a useful subject for an Adjournment debate.

Next Steps

[Relevant documents: Eighth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of session 1989–90 on "Progress in the Next Steps Initiative" (House of Commons Paper No. 481) and the Government's reply (Cm. 1263).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. Speaker: A great many right hon. and hon. Members—13 of them—wish to participate in the debate. I ask the four Front-Bench spokesmen to trim their speeches, and Back Benchers to bear that restraint in mind.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): If, a generation ago, a Minister had spoken from the Dispatch Box about a revolution in the civil service, there is no doubt that the next day a cartoon by Osbert Lancaster would have appeared in the Daily Express showing a series of gentlemen in bowler hats with rolled umbrellas at the ready marching from Marsham street or Victoria street towards Whitehall. No doubt, there would also have been a picture of Maudie Littlehampton on the pavement looking suitably amazed. But times have changed in the civil service. Bowler hats and rolled umbrellas are out—if they were ever in—and instead, especially in Departments and offices outside London, the order of the day tends to be jeans and tee shirts with suitably lurid stencils on them. The composition of the civil service today is more like that of Marks and Spencer. More than half the staff are women, most have not been in the civil service for long, and four out of five are located outside London and the south-east. Another key difference is that 95 per cent. of the staff are mainly involved not in taking weighty decisions but in providing service to the public.
A quiet revolution is taking place—a revolution started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—

Mr. John Garrett: An old idea.

Mr. Renton: I am coming to that.
I am delighted to see the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in his place. The Select Committee described next steps in its most recent report as the most ambitious attempt at civil service reform in the 20th century. It may also be seen as the latest stage in a process of reform dating back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854—the basis of today's impartial civil service with competitive recruitment on merit—through to the Fulton report in 1968, which put the focus on management and on the job to be done. That process continued through the financial management initiative in the 1980s, which introduced the idea of delegating budget responsibility to managers, and the Ibbs next steps report in 1988, which gave its name to the policy. Now, in 1991, we have the Fraser report. I believe that Sir Robin Ibbs's contribution to civil service reform is likely to earn him the ultimate accolade—a building at one of the executive agencies for which I am responsible, at the civil service college, called after him; just as Northcote, Chaucer and other famous civil servants have had buildings named after them at the college in Sunningdale.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: What an accolade.

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his enthusiastic support for the suggestion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will there be an Ingham building at Sunningdale for studying the arts of prime ministerial press secretaryship? Does the Minister approve, under the new reforms, of civil servants in the most sensitive positions publishing 400-page books about the very recent past? How does Bernard Ingham's book, "Kill the Messenger", fit in with the civil service reforms?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has not waited long to make his obvious intervention. Reading the Crossman diaries, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar —indeed, he features in them—one is hardly struck by the Labour Government's detached, balanced and fair approach to the civil service. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, the Labour party governed by intervening in the civil service to promote those who acquiesced in their overtly political views. Joe Haines, the famous Labour press officer, might seem to make Mr. Ingham look like a St. Bernard in a Trappist convent by comparison.
I shall return to my main subject, and leave Mr. Ingham and other former press secretaries to one side. First, I pay tribute to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I am delighted that its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), is in the Chamber today. I very much welcome the input from Committees of the House, especially from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. It is fair to say that the development of next steps has been a team effort between the Select Committee and the Government.
The TCSC is about to embark on its fourth annual inquiry into next steps. I realise that this debate may have caused it to postpone its initial sitting. I apologise for that, but the debate flows from a recommendation in the Committee's eighth report of the 1989–90 Session. I very much welcome the recent appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) to that Committee. I welcome him not only as my predecessor as Minister for the Arts and Minister of State, Privy Council Office, but because I know that he will make a valuable contribution to the vital work of the Committee. It is a pleasure to see that Sussex Members are so well represented on the Committee.
I also acknowledge the work of the Public Accounts Committee on next steps matters. Both sides of the House will recognise and welcome the broad parliamentary support for the aim of next steps. I fully agree with the letter on that subject from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing in today's Financial Times. I have already welcomed the contribution made from the very start of the project by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), and I am pleased to put that on record.
The House will be aware of the excellent progress made in implementing next steps. Hon. Members will know that from answers that I have frequently given from the Dispatch Box over the past few months and from the regular announcements by Secretaries of State in charge of the relevant Departments involved with next steps agencies that have recently been created. Today, more than 200,000 civil sevants are working along next steps lines. There are 50 established agencies, ranging from the Social Security Benefits Agency, which employs nearly

70,000 staff, to the Queen Elizabeth conference centre, which employs 70. There are a further 23 announced candidates so far, and more are to come. The Fraser report, which was published last week, is aptly entitled, "Making the Most of Next Steps". We should pay particular attention to that during the debate.
Setting up agencies is only part of the job. The other side is to make sure that the arrangements work in practice. Sir Angus Fraser, the Prime Minister's adviser in the efficiency unit, the successor to Sir Robin Ibbs, was asked to examine the relationship between Departments and agencies, and how Departments should adapt their size, structure and methods of working in the light of next steps. The Fraser report was published on 16 May, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on it in some detail in his written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that day.
The report confirms that next steps is leading to real improvements in the quality of service and better value for money. I shall describe some of those results in a minute, but the key point is perhaps somewhat more intangible —it is that both sides of the bargain between Ministers and chief executives should be strengthened. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, Ministers must be able to give agencies clear strategic direction firmly related to the Government's policy objectives.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that they must determine the financial resources that are to be made available, and that they must select and set suitably robust and meaningful targets covering quality of service, financial performance and efficiency. My right hon. Friend also said that they must be able to call chief executives to account for their performance. The role of people in the central core of Whitehall Departments is to provide well-informed and authoritative support to Ministers so that Ministers can do just that. As a result, the number of people at the centre of Departments can be reduced.
On the other side of the bargain, we are seeking personal responsibility and authority for chief executives to run their organisations, since it is they who are responsible for achieving the progressive improvements in performance, quality of service and value for money that we seek. Agencies' delegations and flexibilities can be enlarged as their track record of performance is established, provided essential controls on public expenditure are not jeopardised. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing agrees. The principle is that the chief executive should have maximum managerial authority to run his agency as he thinks right, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. The process may vary between Departments and agencies.
As hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the head of the home civil service to take forward in each Department the ideas in the report, and to do that in ways that fit each activity. The next steps project manager in my Department has been instructed to work with the Treasury and with other Departments to bring that about. The Fraser report says that Departments need to consider their role in support of Ministers in relation to agencies. The three important issues are: first, giving chief executives the authority, responsibility and incentives that they need to deliver better results and holding them to account for their performance; secondly, allowing managers in agencies and Departments to shop around for the best buy for support services; and, thirdly, reducing headquarters staff, especially in personnel and


finance divisions. The report says that a reduction of a quarter in the total of such staff in these functions should be sought.
The Fraser report confirms an idea that is at the heart of next steps—responsibility should be firmly placed with one named individual. Personal responsibility and scope to bring about results are surely the ways to release the energies, skills and enthusiasms that are to be found in our civil service.
All this is surely just a means to the simple end of the improved results that we are seeing. I shall give a few examples of the improved results and initiatives that have flowed from next steps and explain why the Government, with the support of the whole House, want to take it forward. Many agencies recover some or all of their costs from charges. The Meteorological Office, which is not always the most favoured organisation in the land, sells tailored weather forecasts, income from which is running at more than £500,000 a year. I shall give two examples of how that is helping the taxpayer and business. Last August, a retailer took Met Office advice that the warm weather would continue and bought stock of over £1 million worth of tee shirts. He sold them all. Ice cream manufacturers and brewers are consulting the Met Office to help improve their forecasts of demand. Many processes depend on weather factors, such as humidity, and by tailoring its forecast to what the customer needs to know, the Met Office is developing new services and new customers.
Driving Standards Agency examiners now explain faults to failed candidates to help them understand where they were going wrong. The agency published "Your Driving Test" to help people pass the test and improve standards on our roads. That book is now in The Sunday Times list of best sellers, which says much for the standard of driving in this country. The agency's target was to reduce waiting times for tests in non-metropolitan areas to eight weeks, and it is offering tests on Saturdays.
The Employment Service job club opened on a pilot basis in Pentonville prison. So far 24 people have passed through and nine found jobs. Similar facilities offered via the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders exist at Holloway and 24 people out of 66 have found jobs. The Employment Service has made the UB40 signing card more user friendly and has related it to getting a job rather than just drawing unemployment benefit. Customer satisfaction will be measured annually among agency customers by means of a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Statistics.
The recently established Passport Agency has a target to reduce the time taken to process correct applications to within 20 days in January to July and to within 10 days at other times. It is considering differential pricing to smooth out demand over the year, and is planning a new financial regime to help match resources to swings and demand.
The Historic Royal Palaces Agency faced a problem because of the success of the crown jewels as a crowd puller. Long queues were spoiling the day for everyone, so the agency installed video screens, made a film about the crowd jewels and the Tower. It found that some people are so keen to watch it right through that they give up their place in the queue to see the real jewels. That clever idea keeps everyone happy.
The Social Security Benefits Agency, which has just been launched, is setting targets to clear applications for specific benefits within published times—on the same day for crisis loans, within five days for income support and within seven days for community care grants.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Social Security Benefits Agency have as one of its aims an increase in take-up rates?

Mr. Renton: Its aim is to clear applications for benefits within the times that I have stated, and that should have the effect of increasing take-up. The hon. Gentleman should look at the framework document in detail. If the target is to provide the benefits within such short periods, the take-up is likely to increase.
I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who said in the House last week that the establishment of this agency was simply motivated by a desire to reduce costs. Plainly, that is not so. One target relates to the level of customer satisfaction expressed, and that will be verified by an independent national survey of opinions of all groups of customers. The agency will carry out local surveys to identify customer needs, and will introduce customer service managers and a new customer satisfaction measure. All those improvements are clearly aimed at making the service more user friendly, easier to approach and easier to obtain results from.
All the initiatives that I have mentioned, and many more, are greatly in line with the ideas about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in the context of a citizens' charter. They are about responding to the customer, and empowering him, which must be the purpose of empowering agency chief executives.
Next steps opens up what government does. Every agency has a framework document in which its aims and objectives and the targets set by the Minister are published. All agencies are required to report on what they have done and to produce and publish combined annual reports and accounts. Those will be signed by the chief executive and audited by the National Audit Office and will provide unparalleled information on agency activities. The annual reports for 1990–91 will be published from July onwards.
The House will recall that the targets set for agencies last year were included in the first next steps review which was published in October. I shall certainly consider repeating that exercise. All this. means more openness, more information in the public domain for taxpayers, customers and Parliament and, in most cases, this is for the first time.
The Government's privatisation policies continue. The Government continue to keep under review the basis on which Government services are provided. The feasibility of immediate privatisation has been considered and rejected for all agencies so far, with the exception of the National Engineering Laboratory, where it was made clear that agency status was en route to the private sector.
It cannot be ruled out that, after a period of some years, agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation. When an agency is established with a view to privatisation, this is made clear, as in the case of the National Engineering Laboratory. Privatisation and competition are the best friends of the consumer, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear.

Mr. Giles Radice: What did all that mean? Is the Minister saying that, once an agency has been set up and it has been confirmed that it is not a candidate for privatisation in the immediate future, its future is safe?

Mr. Renton: I do not wish to repeat myself, as other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I chose my words with care and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads them in the Official Report.
I shall take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff. The next steps policy makes sense to them, and this is another reason why the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East on 9 May, when he talked about public servants being hounded and pilloried, were wrong. Quite the contrary: the next steps policy reflects a demand for change for the better that comes from the public servants as well as from the outside world—the customers who want a more responsive service and the taxpayers who want better value for money. Agency staff understand the job they have to do and they welcome being set clear targets, and being given the resources and the managerial scope to meet them. Like the people whom they serve, they can relate better to smaller units with clearer identity. The newly published Fraser report underlines the importance to staff in the centres of Departments, too, in having a clearly defined role and the satisfaction of using their abilities and energies to best effect in supporting and advising Ministers.
I also pay tribute to the trade unions, which have already been consulted about proposals to establish agencies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said they would be when she announced the proposals in February 1988. They will continue to be consulted about any changes in terms and conditions that are contemplated. There is no central strategy for union derecognition or any proposal to derecognise any union as a matter of policy.
Finally, I must say a word about accountability. Ministers set the targets and tasks and allocate the resources. Parliament and the public can see what they have done and what they have commissioned the agency to do. The chief executive is personally responsible for delivering the results. I am sure that the Fraser report is right to hint that with responsibility go both the reward for getting it right and the blame for getting it wrong.
We are taking great care to get the right people to be chief executives. Open competition is the normal route. Having got the right person for the job, we must have the confidence to let him get on with it. Accountability includes the requirement to be as responsive as possible to the concerns of Members of Parliament. I believe that direct contact between hon. Members and chief executives and appearances by chief executives, on behalf of Ministers, before Committees of the House will improve overall accountability and give a better service to Members and their constituents.
There is a great deal of enthusiasm and pride among civil servants for the work that they do and a strong commitment to providing the public with high-quality services, delivered in a business-like way. Through next steps, we hope to tap this enthusiasm and release the energy and skills of staff. This progressive reform has been introduced and carried forward by the Government. We shall pursue it with zest and popular support.

Dr. John Marek: The Minister may pursue reforms with zest until the next general election, but after that there will be a somewhat different view of the reforms, and a different line will be taken by the Labour party. I am glad that the Minister mentioned privatisation at the tail end of his speech, but, with his characteristic lack of incisiveness, he failed to mention the Government's hidden agenda of wholesale privatisation of civil service departments should the Conservative party win the next election.
I welcome the debate. If it were not for the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, little would be known about the workings of the agency system, as this is the first opportunity that the House has had to air its views on this vital aspect of the civil service and the way in which nearly half of our public services are being administered.

Mr. Renton: I shall not intervene again in the hon. Gentleman's speech, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, but that comment is somewhat unjust. After all, my predecessor, with the then Prime Minister, published a report in October 1990. It is a detailed review of the next steps agencies after the first year in which many have been in progress. There is a great deal of detail in it and I have already said that I will consider publishing a similar report, quite apart from the annual accounts that will start to be published from July onwards.

Dr. Marek: I will come back later to that part of what the Minister said. However, this is the first time that the House of Commons has had a debate about agencies. Responsibility for these agencies and their day-to-day running has been shifted downwards to the chief executives without the consent of the House. Questions and letters from hon. Members are answered by chief executives, and this raises questions about ministerial responsibility and the access by hon. Members and the press to the letters that are deposited in the Library, rather than being published in Hansard.
We have had no debate on the shift in responsibility or on the dramatic changes in the way that our civil service operates. We have had no debate on the change in conditions, and its introduction, on those civil servants who contracted to work in the civil service but now work in different circumstances. Why were no pilot studies undertaken before the agency system was imposed on the civil service? When I say "imposed", I mean that. There has been little consultation with those civil servants who have to carry out the so-called reforms, despite the assurances by the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, during the Second Reading of the Government Trading Funds Bill.
There have been no serious evaluations of the first three years of the workings of agencies—I except from this the efforts of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
We are faced with an increase of 26 agencies on top of the 50 or so already established, so it is time for a serious evaluation to be made.
A report to the Prime Minister called "Improving Management and Government: The Next Steps"—the Fraser report—may be the next step along the road of trying to ensure the triumph of party political dogma, but


it is a wild leap in the dark for good government. The integrity and skills of our civil service are highly regarded throughout the world. We have a reputation second to none, yet the civil service is now being fragmented in a way that could undermine one of the great foundations of our country.
Agencies may be the right way forward—the Labour party does not deny that. However, to deny debate, consultation and reassessment is a serious matter. In the hands of the right Government, agencies will be an asset, but in the hands of the wrong Government, whose motivation is one of profit before service, the consequences for the country could be devastating.
I come now to what I believe has been the main motive behind the introduction of these agencies—not the quality of service but how costs can be cut so that privatisation can follow.
Basically, the agencies were set up to cut staff and, where possible, to cut pay. The Treasury has worked on the principle of paying civil servants as little as it can get away with, and not a fair rate of pay to motivate civil servants and encourage them to do their jobs properly. That principle does not apply at the top end of the civil service, however. The head of the civil service will be paid £104,750 per annum. It will not be difficult to fill posts such as that.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument, which betrays a lack of understanding and knowledge of the civil service. Surely agency agreements recognise the skill of civil servants and devolve management accountability to a lower level. Surely that is what civil servants have been asking for over a long time. Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question: is he in favour of that devolution or is he not?

Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension. The report is about enabling chief executives and not devolving powers lower down the scale. The right hon. Gentleman says that the civil service has been asking for the establishment of agencies. He should be more specific and tell the House who has been asking for that. It is not something that appears in the Fraser report.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Marek: No. Let me finish my point first.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question.

Dr. Marek: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to sit down. I shall give way, but first I want to make my point. The right hon. Gentleman will take the time of others who wish to contribute to the debate if he insists on intervening.
As I have said, I should like to know who within the civil service has been asking for changes to be made. The answer to that question is not to be found in the Fraser report.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not intervene again after asking whether the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that either the employment service or the benefits service is opposed to this new policy development.

Dr. Marek: The benefits service is far more interested in having decent buildings in which its staff can provide proper services for those who are seeking support. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) intervened during the speech of the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman could have responded by saying that one of the quality of service conditions will be that any claimant will be told all his or her rights. If the right hon. Gentleman had made that statement, I would have been heartened, but unfortunately I heard no such statement. I do not suppose that I shall ever hear a Minister make such a statement, and that summarises the difference between the Opposition's approach to agencies and the Government's approach.
I said before the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) intervened that, in some circumstances, agencies could lead to an advance in administration within the civil service, but I have no hope that that will ever be achieved while the Government are in office. The most important factor is the delivery of a high-quality service. There has been no serious evaluation of quality and no proper examination of the sort of structure that is best for the provision of high-quality public services. No attempt has been made to compare the advantages of a national civil service with the supposed advantages of agencies.
In the opening of his report to the Prime Minister, Sir Angus Fraser says that there is general agreement that the next steps initiative is progressing well. I do not know who it is who is agreeing, and for what reasons. Where are improvements to be found in quality of service as a result of the changes? If there are improvements, can it be proved that they are the result of the move to agency status, or were they already in train in the pre-agency world? Could they have been achieved without establishing agencies?
In most agencies, unions are not meaningfully consulted when it comes to establishing targets. I agree, however, that they have been consulted in the course of arriving at framework agreements. The unions are not allowed an input into the corporate planning process in most agencies. Market research hardly qualifies as real user involvement. Some agencies have made half-hearted efforts along this road, but most have not. Overall, too little attention has been paid to the development of sophisticated measures of quality, while too much attention has been given to cost cutting as a supposed answer. The arbitrary and obligatory 1·5 per cent. or 1 per cent. saving while maintaining efficiency demonstrates the emphasis that has been placed on cost cutting.
Morale in the agencies is not high everywhere. In what remains of the rest of the civil service, there is a widespread feeling that agencies are being introduced at a rate that may destroy the impartiality and integrity of civil servants, along with their dedication to quality of work and service to the public.
At the end of the day, civil servants are at the sharp end: it is they who deliver the service. Their views should count when it comes to determining the ways in which services should be delivered. Unfortunately, their views are not taken into account. No amount of window dressing can make the quality of service better at the point of delivery. If the window dressing consists of glossy brochures that promise the earth but fail to deliver, it is worthless.
The framework document that relates to the Passport Office refers to an


appropriate level of fees to recover the full costs of providing these services.
I was not surprised when the Minister talked about differential charging, because that is the Government's theme. It means that, if someone can afford to pay, he will receive a first class service, while those who cannot afford to pay will get a second class service. That applies to the hospital service and education, and the theme is now the same for the civil service. There is the triumph of political dogma over the provision of a proper service for all our people.
The aims, functions and objectives set out in the framework document that relate to the Passport Agency would be rewritten by a Labour Government. There is far too much secrecy in the executive agencies. In some agencies, the corporate and business plans are confidential documents. These include the Building Research Establishment, the Central Office of Information, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Companies House, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Land Registry, the Meteorological Office, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Warren Spring Laboratory.
There are other agencies in which either the business plan or the corporate plan is a confidential document. There are examples where the personnel management memorandum, or its equivalent, is a confidential document. Such examples include the Central Office of Information, the Information Technology Services Agency, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Meteorological Office. Why is there such secrecy in these agencies?
The Minister made great play of the claim that the unions are always consulted. If they are consulted, let them have copies of I he documents to which I have referred—and let the House have copies as well.
At the end of the day, I believe that the Government want privatisation. I do not believe that they will be content with administrative change. That ultimate goal is an immoral goal. Information must be made available to the general public, and services must be provided at a price that the public can afford, and guarantees cannot be given under privatisation. If services become a charge on democracy, we shall be treading a dangerous road.
If anyone is in doubt about eventual privatisation, I shall reinforce my argument by the use of a few quotations. The next steps report says that ultimately some agencies may no longer be within the civil service. On 24 October 1988, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), stated:
I cannot rule out, however, that after a period of years, agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation."—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 14.]
I note that some Conservative Members are nodding. I hope that that will be reported in Hansard.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and the Labour party are utterly opposed in principle to the privatisation of all the departments in question, whatever the merits of the argument for taking that course, or is he saying that some departments, such as the Public Record Office, might merit privatisation?

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must mention a few merits. Perhaps we can discuss merits when he comes to contribute to the debate. He may wish to develop the theme. I shall be interested to hear exactly what he has to say.
I shall quote Mr. Peter Middleton, the then permanent secretary to the Treasury, who gave evidence in 1988 to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. I refer to the second volume of the Committee's eighth report, in which Mr. Middleton is reported as saying:
becoming an agency may be a step to privatisation later; it is all part of getting a more commercial attitude.
There we have it. Mr. Middleton added:
I think this is particularly true of the various trading funds".
Last week, the Minister said:
We have never said that 'next steps' … is necessarily the end of the road. It is right that some parts of the civil service should be considered for contractorisation and that other parts should be considered as candidates for privatisation." —[Official Report, 13 May 1991; Vol.106, c. 17.]
That is in line with the Fraser report and with the next steps initiative in respect of a wholesale contracting out of the support services.
I believe that the Government have a hidden agenda, and it will be interesting to see whether they are honest enough to make it public to the civil service, and to say that, if they win the next general election, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Passport Office, Ordnance Survey, the Meteorological Office and the DVLC will be on a list of likely privatisations. Perhaps the Minister will give a straightforward answer when he winds up, because that would be welcome, one way or the other.
The problem with commercialisation of the kind advocated in the Fraser report was cited by the chief executive—as I mentioned when the right hon. Gentleman who is a Member for a midlands constituency intervened earlier in my speech.

Sir Norman Fowler: I represent the constituency of Sutton Coldfield.

Dr. Marek: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me.

Mr. Renton: What a disgraceful lack of knowledge.

Dr. Marek: The Minister may say that, but I come from Wales, and from such areas the midlands look rather far away.
The Fraser report provides for an enabling of the chief executive. The Minister is said to be in a "quasi-contractual relationship" with the chief executive. That phrase was first coined by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, but it is rather an unfortunate one. I should not wish for anything but that the chief executive should be completely responsible to the relevant Minister. A "quasi-contractual relationship" could be the first step in breaking that link and could lead to privatisation later. That is why agencies were first introduced.
When Labour is elected to office, we shall make certain arguments for agencies. One is that they can provide Parliament with a better insight into their activities, as well as better services. However, agencies require fairly rewarded, properly trained and highly motivated staff. They also need boards of management with staff representation.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman means union representation.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman has got it in one. Agencies need a clear statement of the policies under which they operate, and clear service quality targets that can regularly be met.
The Fraser report does not argue for any of those. It is time-locked in a web of political dogma, which has surrounded agencies since they were first established. The next Labour Government will lay that aside, and the next steps project manager will be given another job.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am somewhat astonished by the hon. Gentleman's remark that dogma has surrounded the agencies since they were first established. On the contrary, the general feeling is of all-party agreement that there is a strong case for going along the agency route. I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman is taking the line that he is.

Dr. Marek: There is no case for going along the route of the Fraser report. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of indulging in political dogma: I accuse the Government. There is a case for changing the nature of the agencies so that they provide for fairly paid, well trained and highly motivated staff—but that is not guaranteed, and it is unlikely to come about, if the spectre of privatisation looms over the heads of many civil servants working in the agencies.
If privatisation is on the cards—I firmly believe it is —the possibilities are endless. I suppose that someone would have to tell Sid, and then the Government could use the profits to make more tax cuts for the benefit of the rich, instead of sharing out the benefits to all. That would be another waste of resources on the scale of North sea oil.
The Government seek to develop a leaner, fitter civil service. We all know what happened to the economy. The Government began their term in office with one recession and are leaving it with another. The Government were supposed to cultivate a leaner and fitter industrial base, but we know what confronts manufacturing industry today. We are again in a recession, and there is no fat to cut. Are further cuts and more privatisation what the nation needs? I do not think so for a moment.
Agencies would be very different under a Labour Government. The present Government may succeed in putting a gloss on the surface of the many problems confronting the Civil Service, but if it cannot deliver, the gloss will fade, and we shall be left with the dull fragments of what was once a proud service—and that would be a tragedy. It is high time that the Government called a general election, so that Labour can start to repair the damage.

Sir Richard Luce: When I had the privilege of being Minister of State in the Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was Opposition spokesman on civil service matters. I enjoyed our exchanges, but he appeared to be in a confused state of mind as to the purpose behind the creation of executive agencies. I confess to failing to convince the hon. Gentleman of their value. Even more confusing today is that the hon. Member for Wrexham does not appear to have consulted the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or his hon. Friends on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—all of whom now appear strongly to support the principle of executive agencies.
The hon. Gentleman also does not seem to understand the purposes of the agencies, which are to improve the quality of service given to the public and give the taxpayer better value for money. That is what most concerns the Government. One of the side effects of providing an even better service will inevitably be greater job satisfaction within the civil service—so, of course, there are spin-off benefits. However, the Government's first concern is to improve the quality of the service.
Having given evidence to the Select Committee over four or five years, sometimes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and sometimes to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), I am relieved to serve now as one of its members—as poacher-turned-gamekeeper—in order that I may continue to take an interest. There is no shadow of doubt about the scale and importance of the reforms.
The public's perception of the civil service has been moulded by the long-running television series, "Yes Minister", and they still believe that the mandarins tell Ministers precisely what to do and what to say, and that they really run the Government.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: They do.

Sir Richard Luce: My hon. Friend says that there is some truth in that belief. However, I will tell him that, within two weeks of my becoming Minister of State in the Privy Council Office, Paul Eddington came to see me, not about civil service matters but about the arts. I grew rather confused by the case that he was making, so I asked him to pause for a moment and to clarify a particular point. I asked him, "Is this what you really mean?" There was a long pause and eventually he answered, "Yes Minister." That led me to believe that I had not quite asserted my authority in the office, but I trust that I did so after that.
My right hon. Friend the Minister effectively explained that we have come a long way since the significant Northcott-Trevelyan reforms of the last century, which provided for fair and open competition, promotion on merit, professional standards, service loyal to the elected Government of the day, and impartial in that sense. Those principles remain. Sir Charles Trevelyan referred to
sickly youths whose parents and friends endeavour to obtain for them service in the employment of the Government as a soft option leading to an early public pension.
His purpose was to change the climate and to establish those standards of fair and open competition, and of loyalty to the elected Government, that have survived to the present day.
Recent years have seen the publication of the Plowden and Fulton reports, both of which referred to the need to improve civil service management which was badly lacking. That led in the early 1980s to the delegation of management responsibilities through the financial management initiative, and from there to the Ibbs report, which pointed out that 95 per cent. of the people who serve in the home civil service are dealing with the provision of services to customers of one kind or another, which is highly significant and interesting in itself. Ibbs advocated, as my right hon. Friend the Minister stressed, the need to delegate responsibility. The more that one delegates the more likely one is to achieve better management of resources, better value for money, better accountability and clearer targets, all of which are necessary to help us to improve the quality of the service.
The reforms are crucial and therefore we are talking not merely about the quantity of money available to public services, but about how we can more effectively improve existing services with given levels of resources. I am glad that, despite the speech by the hon. Member for Wrexham, there is bipartisan support for the principle of delegation of responsibility—or I should like to believe that that is the case.
Our first duty is to the taxpayers and to the customers that we serve—in most cases they are one and the same. Today we have a chance to take stock of the two reports, the so-called Fraser report and the Price Waterhouse report of March this year, which reviewed the way in which the agencies are progressing. There are now 50 agencies with 210,000 civil servants, and another 23 candidates for agency status. There is growing staff enthusiasm for the existence of the agencies and, therefore, more job satisfaction. It is just under three years since the first agency was created—the Vehicles Inspectorate—and we are beginning to see the first signs of improved performance and better customer service. The fact that so many of the agencies carry out customer surveys is a sign of an attitude of mind that is changing fast and of a different cultural approach.
I strongly support and commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I am sure that he would allow me to congratulate Mr. Kemp, the project manager, who has given admirable momentum to the implementation of those significant reforms.
I refer especially to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Hansard last week, when he referred to the need to ensure that agencies
select and set suitably robust and meaningful targets covering quality of service, financial performance and efficiency; and call chief executives to account for the performance.
He stressed that
This means strategic advice and direction"—
from the Minister, but—
not day-to-day involvement."—[Official Report, 16 May 1991; Vol. 191, c.248.]
That is an important statement of the way in which we have to continue.
I stress the importance of delegation of authority. The key to success is to delegate authority for the management of resources to chief executives, and thereby to the team that serves under him. Of course, overall financial control must be imposed from the Treasury, the Government and the Department. We must agree on overall resources and then delegate the day-to-day operation to the chief executive.
I noticed in the Fraser report a strong reference to the experience of the private sector and to the value and the need to delegate as much as possible, setting clear guidelines from the centre, but leaving the chief executive to get on with the job, which will be crucial to success. The Fraser report also stresses that we must untie support services to enable better value for money and that we must reduce the number of headquarters staff in the personnel and financial divisions. If one is delegating authority one cannot need so many people at the centre.
As part of the delegation process, those executive agencies must have more freedom to decide how it is best to proceed as regards flexibility on pay and the provision of performance bonuses. The second aspect of the problem is performance targets, which are crucial. The House, on behalf of the country, must be able to judge the

performance, progress, value for money and quality of the service provided by agencies, through clearly established targets for quality, financial matters and efficiency.
We are beginning to have evidence from the Vehicles Inspectorate, from HMSO, Companies House and others of improved services and of better value for money. The House has a singularly important part to play in that regard and I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State stressed accountability to the House and the right of Select Committees—not merely the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, but also departmental Select Committees—to summon chief executives to enable them to account to the House for their performance and to allow hon. Members to challenge them.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is a strong believer in the legislature challenging the performance of the Executive and that is the purpose of the exercise and what Select Committees should be doing. Good chief executives should welcome that opportunity to get across their achievements.
There is no uniformity in the system of executive agencies and nor should there be. Each agency is a different size and type and they should be tailor-made for requirements. Some agencies run on gross running costs, some on net running costs and others on trading fund status. It depends on the nature of the agency and how far it can be run on commercial or semi-commercial lines.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Wrexham goes on about privatisation. The Government's approach is quite straightforward. If the service is better suited to privatisation and thereby a better quality of service is provided, that is the first option. If it is considered that that is not the case, the next option is for it to go to an agency. In due course, it may turn out to be more suitable for it to be run on a privatised basis and I believe that that will be the case with the National Engineering Laboratory. The key question that we must ask ourselves is what is the best means of improving the quality of service to the public and getting the best value for money? That is the first and only question that we should ask ourselves.
I am glad that there was an open competition system for half of the first 34 agencies. It is important to establish that principle across the board, so that we have the opportunity to recruit the best chief executives to run the agencies, whether from the private sector or from the civil service, and we must move towards that, although I am glad that 14 chief executives come from outside the service. The executives appointed from inside the service are certainly of very high quality.
Finally, I must stress the interplay between management and policy advisers, as it is crucial for there to be a constant interchange between the two. The quality of the advice given by policy advisers to Ministers will be enhanced by their having had management experience in the agencies. However complex it may be to provide that, it is absolutely essential to the success of the service, and I strongly advocate that we consider ways in which we can ensure that people move from one to the other.
We must never lose sight of our main objectives in this exciting and major reform of the civil service this century: better service for the public and better value for money. In the process, we will achieve an even more professional and dedicated service, which will do an even better job.

Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome this debate but, frankly, it is long overdue. It is a pity that it should be taking place three years after the agency reforms started. Perhaps it is also a pity that it is taking place in the run-up to a general election.
I shall begin by referring to the involvement of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and thanking the Minister of State for his words. As we can see from this debate, bureaucracy-watching has always been a minority sport. Like the mandarins themselves, Members of Parliament are usually much more comfortable with policy issues than with questions of management; but I, and I think many hon. Members in the Select Committee, thought that the next steps changes were far too important to be left to the Executive alone, and that there should be a parliamentary input.
The Sub-Committee, under the auspices of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—I am glad that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), is present—was involved from the start. We held annual hearings on the developments in the next steps programme. We have issued three reports, and we shall hold further hearings in the next month or so. We hope to give our fourth report to the House before the summer recess. The Select Committee's close involvement in a major bureaucratic change is, arguably, unique in the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
The Select Committee has called the next steps initiative
the most ambitious attempt at civil service reform in the 20th century",
which I think is right. The changes could affect not only 75 per cent. of the civil service, but also the way in which a wide variety of essential services are delivered to the public. It is very much in the nation's interest that these services are delivered with maximum efficiency. As we said,
a well-managed state is in the interests of all its citizens.
Surely that can be agreed between the parties.
The agency idea has not come out of the blue. It should have been mentioned—I do not think it was—that it is built on the Fulton idea of accountable units. It was pointed out in the Fraser committee report that there is a straight connection with the Fulton committee, which was set up by the Labour Government in the 1960s. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is present, as he played a distinguished part in drawing up that committee's report. The Fulton committee concluded that, to function effectively, members of large organisations, including Departments, should have authority, unitedly and individually. It was essential, in Fulton's view, that that authority should be clearly defined and that civil servants have responsibilities for which they can be held accountable.
The Ibbs report used the Fulton concept as a basis for proposing the policy of devolved agencies to handle the majority of the Government's business. So far, the next steps reforms have got off to a pretty good start. Since 1988, 50 agencies will have been set up by the end of the year. The next steps programme will apply to nearly half the civil servants by the end of the year.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that it is too early to make a considered assessment. It would be foolish for us to do so, because some agencies, especially the biggest and most controversial such as the Employment Agency or the Social Security

Benefits Agency, are only just up and running, and are still in their infancy. However, the next steps changes are beginning to prove their worth.
I should like to pay tribute to the project manager. He and his team have done a good job on their remit. It is not right to refer to the jobs of civil servants, who are acting under the instructions of Ministers, as though they are taking an independent initiative—they are not. Those who ask for a non-partisan civil service cannot, at the same time, say that we will sack or shift individual civil servants.

Mr. Batiste: Hear, hear.

Mr. Radice: That also applies to Conservative Members. In the past few years, under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), many of us feared that the civil service was becoming politicised. Journalists talked of a "Thatcherite Satrapy" when referring to the civil service. Thank goodness that has not taken place, although people such as Sir Bernard Ingham behaved in a political way and should have been political appointments, as the Select Committee implied in its report. However, the civil service is still non-partisan. Its head has made it clear that he wants it to remain so, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). It is not for us to criticise the actions of individual civil servants when they are acting under the instructions of Ministers.
I welcome the speech that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East to the Royal Institute of Public Administration. He said that an incoming Labour Government would not seek to reverse the changes made:
I do not think that there would be merit in a new Government seeking to uproot all the plants in the garden, re-arrange their roots and then, having planted them again, expect them to grow well.
He is absolutely right. He also pointed out that the framework agreement, which sets out the responsibilities and duties of an agency, can be changed by an incoming Government. The agency idea is politically neutral. It is administrative technology that can be transmitted from one Government to the next. This key idea behind the agency reform was endorsed by the head of the civil service when he told us that transmission is a simple matter that is allowed for in a review of a framework agreement. The Labour party supports the agency reforms partly because we could change the framework agreement to allow objectives to reflect the values of an incoming Labour Government.
There is a wider message. If a Government are embarking on far-reaching changes, especially a change involving the civil service, it is essential to have consensus; otherwise the reforms are likely to be reversed by a successor Government. I hope that the Government take notice of what I am about to say: it would be extremely foolish if, having taken the trouble to set up civil service agencies, they then decided to embark on a programme of privatisation. It has been rumoured in newspapers that the Conservative party may do so if it wins the next election.
I hope that the Government do not want to privatise sitting agencies, and that the Minister's vague words meant that they would not do so. Such a development would undermine the undoubted consensus on next steps, and could endanger the success of the reforms.

Mr. Renton: I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the consensus. For that reason, I paid tribute to the work


of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which included the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). However, is there consensus in the Labour party on this matter?
I read the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) with much interest. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) gave me the strong impression that he was distancing himself from the next steps process. That shows the great divide on this matter in the Labour party.

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham made it clear that he was in favour of the agency reforms, but that, under a Labour Government, they would take a different shape. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the framework agreement allows that to happen, because the objectives of an agency can be changed. Different people may put their words differently. As I said, it is a pity that this debate is taking place in the run-up to a general election. That is the fault not of my hon. Friend, but of the Government, who have delayed the debate, despite our telling them many years ago not to do so.
If the Minister is trying to maintain the consensus, it would be foolish of him to stir the party political pot. I advise him not to do so.

Mr. Renton: The intra party political pot.

Mr. Radice: I have not done that. The Minister should not look a gift horse in the mouth. He should accept support, wherever it comes from and not complain, because he is quite lucky.
In supporting the next steps reforms, I am not hiding the fact that there are major problems of implementation; we must accept that. Some of the problems were covered in the three reports of the Select Committee, and some were covered in the recently published Fraser report, which the Select Committee will want to consider. It will want to take evidence from Sir Angus Fraser. He has said —we have said so, too—that clear framework agreements are required. Some of those agreements are not yet clear enough on objectives, duties and responsibilities.
Within the agreement, management must have sufficient independence, because that is the point of the agency reform. At the same time, the management must be made accountable and the only way to do that is to have proper performance indicators. However, performance indicators are in their infancy. We do not have a fully developed sense of what they should be, and in particular, we have not established sufficient output indicators. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is an expert on such matters, and I look forward very much to his remarks.
It should not be a question of cost cutting. As we said in our latest report, we should like some of the benefits to be invested in improved services to the general public. I agree that the appointment of good chief executives is absolutely key, and that it should normally be done by open competition. I am glad to see that that point was endorsed by the Fraser report.
The role and size of core Departments is another problem, epecially as it is likely that there will be job losses within them. It would be foolish to pretend that that will not create great difficulties. The role of the Treasury and whether it supports the agency idea is an issue: I hope it does, but I am not absolutely certain. There is a need for a monitoring unit over and above the project team to

consider developments, to assess whether we are fragmenting the civil service too much and whether we are creating agencies without any general co-ordinating principles.
The nature of the civil service is also an issue. What sort of civil service will remain once all the separate agencies have been created? Will the heads of the agencies be able to become policy advisers? We do not yet know. I believe that they ought to, but I do not know what will happen. These are tricky and important issues, and we shall consider them and others in our report to the House before the summer recess.
The next steps reforms raise in an extreme form the problem of how civil servants are to be made accountable for their actions to Parliament. The classic formula of exclusive ministerial responsibility has, for many years, proved unsatisfactory as a means of ensuring the accountability of civil servants. The range of Government business is so extensive that no single Minister will know in detail everything within his Department. Hence the growing number of appearances of civil servants before Select Committees, which I welcome. That has become such a special feature of parliamentary life that we have a rather esoteric set of Government rules governing the appearance of civil servants—I think that they are called the Osmotherley rules.
The next steps reforms create a new dilemma. The chief executive will be given specific operational responsibility by the framework agreement, but the Minister will remain responsible for the overall terms of the agreement. For example, if an hon. Member wishes to take up an operational matter with the Minister, he or she will be referred to the head of the agency. That seems logical. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have taken up social security cases directly with the local office manager. That is the most efficient way in which to get answers, and that is the way I have always operated. However, until now I have always been able to refer the matter to the Minister if I am not satisfied with the local manager's reply. That is a weapon available to hon. Members, but they will not have it in future, because the Minister will always say that the matter is one for the agency under the framework agreement. Our questions will be referred to the agency, and we will have no recourse to the Minister even if the problem raises wider issues. The House will have to consider that matter carefully and the Select Committee will have to consider it carefully in our coming report.
There are also different issues with the Select Committees. Originally, we recommended that chief executives should give evidence directly on their own behalf to the Select Committees. We were told that that was a matter for overall ministerial responsibility, and the Government proposed a compromise whereby Ministers remained formally responsible but, in practice, agency heads answered for their delegated responsibilities. That seems a sensible approach. It is also welcome that chief executives, such as agency accounting officers, are financially responsible to the Public Accounts Committee. But these changes put pressure on Select Committees, and I question whether they are in a good enough position to carry out their responsibilities.
Select Committees have been slow to question chief executives. Part of the problem is that we do not yet have a generally accepted set of performance indicators, so it becomes difficult to ask meaningful questions about the work of agencies. If the performance indicators can be


developed, perhaps the Select Committees will be in a stronger position. It is important that those Committees can make chief executives responsible for their stewardship.
We must learn as we go along. Accountability is in its infancy, but there is a strong case for arguing that parliamentary accountability of agencies will need to be supplemented by a strengthened system of administrative justice, a more powerful ombudsman and a freedom of information Act.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: No, because there is very little time.
Next steps is a promising reform and hon. Members, particularly those on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, have a responsibility to see that it succeeds.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: One of the clear lessons of the Government's successful privatisation programme in the 1980s was that people freed from the constraints of the governmental system were then often able to make dramatic transformations in the quality of services and the effectiveness of the organisations that they ran. Some executive functions of Government are not now suitable for privatisation and they may not be in the longer term. But we must consider the lessons of the privatisation programme for the structure of government and implement the reforms that will enable similar improvements to be made even if the process falls short of full privatisation.
We should ask ourselves how the interests of customers and good management can be met within the overall and inevitable constraints of the governmental system. We must shift the focus of the managers of governmental executive responsibilities away from looking to their backs, in order to shelve responsibility, and passing on those responsibilities higher up the civil service—almost always ultimately to the Treasury. Instead, we should refocus their attention on giving a better service to their customers and better value for money.
Until I heard the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I had understood that the next steps agencies had widespread support as the right way forward. When the hon. Gentleman reads his speech, he may find that the balance of it gave a different impression, even though some of his remarks undoubtedly suggested support for the principle of the next steps agencies. The Government have an ambitious programme—by 1992, 50 per cent. of civil servants will work in agencies and, in the longer term, the objective is for 90 per cent. of civil servants to work in agencies. Such an ambitious programme will succeed only if it has the widest support among all parties.
My particular interest was focused on 26 April this year, when I, with a number of others, had the privilege of going to the forensic science laboratories at Wetherby on the occasion of the official launch of its next steps agency. Of course, there was trepidation—anybody facing major changes in the way in which his organisation is structured and run will inevitably look to the future with a measure of trepidation—but I found great enthusiasm for the freedom that the people felt that they now had in the running of their affairs. I was particularly heartened by the

way in which the members of the forensic science service, as well as their major customers—the police force—talked about how the service could be improved, how the police could get better value for money and how the detection of crime could be advanced. That is what this process is all about.
How can the process be advanced more generally? Clearly, the maximum devolution of authority downwards is necessary. With that must go the maximum possible devolution of budgets. The provision of incentives for success—however one may phrase that—is an integral part of the process. If there are not rewards for success, the temptation to go for the easy life will always be great.
It is important that support services should be fully costed and that the managers of these agencies should be free to shop around for the best value. There must be tough auditing and complaints procedures. I refer not just to accountability to the House, to which the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred, but to accountability to the public. The public need a strong complaints procedure, with a view to ensuring that, at their end, the objectives of the next steps agencies are properly fulfilled. Clearly, inherent in that are strong, published performance targets. These targets change from time to time; they are indeed moving targets. Clearly, the agencies, as they develop in certain directions, will find new objectives on which they must focus.
As other hon. Members want to take part in this debate, I shall heed your strictures about brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall refrain from referring to many of the fascinating subjects that have been raised in the debate. Suffice it to say that the great political debate of the 1990s will focus on the way in which public services can be made more effective, with a view to delivering better value for money and better service for the people for whom they are intended. The core of that debate is in the citizens' charter proposals that the Prime Minister has floated. Many of the proposals at the core of the citizens' charter are now being developed, extended and experimented with in the next steps agencies. As those agencies succeed, so will the whole process of providing better services for the public.

Mr. John Garrett: I must confess that I have mixed feelings about next steps agencies, as I had a hand in their origin. Twenty-four years ago, a group of which I was a member reported to the Fulton committee that Departments should be divided into budget centres; executive areas with measurable output, which we now call agencies; and responsibility centres handling legislative policy and ministerial support work, which are now called core departments. As a result, Fulton produced a definitive text on agencies. Paragraph 150 of the Fulton report says that the achievement of accountable management
depends upon identifying or establishing accountable units within government departments—units where output can be measured against costs or other criteria, and where individuals can be held personally responsible for their performance.
Of course, because of bitter Treasury opposition those ideas came to nothing.
The concept next surfaced in a Fabian tract written in 1973 by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in which we proposed the widespread establishment of departmental agencies. This tract was called—believe it or not—"Administrative


Reform: The Next Step". The present agencies go much further than we had in mind. We never believed that, on such an issue, the Treasury could be so effectively handbagged. Like Fulton, we saw departmental agencies as bodies that would develop better information and budgetary systems and would enable the development of a cadre of professional top managers in the civil service. The main aim of Fulton, in constructing accountable management, was to break the power of the mandarins —the Oxbridge public school classicists and historians who ran the civil service—and replace them with managers. Unfortunately, that aim has never been fulfilled, and top management in the civil service is as socially and educationally exclusive as ever.
The reason agencies have made such rapid headway is that they were seen as a vehicle for cutting civil service costs by giving agency chief executives a strong incentive, through performance pay, to reduce staff numbers and by ending service-wide agreements on pay and conditions. The idea was to locate agencies in low-pay areas, and then pay their staffs at the local going-rate.
The document that heralded agencies in 1988 was a slight and inexpert piece of work—16 pages of assertions, and no analysis. This is what it says about Parliament:
Presssure from Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee and the media tends to concentrate on alleged impropriety or incompetence, and making political points, rather than on demanding evidence of steadily improving efficiency and effectiveness.
I thought at the time that that was a gratuitous and ignorant observation, given all the efforts that all of us make every day of our lives, in the House and on the Select and Standing Committees, to demand improved performance by Departments. We have certainly never been offered it, and we have never secured it except by relentless pressure. Yet, here we have this dismissive attitude to our work in Parliament.
The first wave of these partly independent nongovernmental organisations—"PINGOs"—is now three years old. Their role, responsibilities, objectives and targets are supposed to be specified in framework documents. The early ones were all in relatively non-controversial areas: quasi-commercial work, where a framework document is not difficult to draw up. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Meteorological Office, the royal parks, research institutions, vehicle licensing, and so on. The only one in the first wave which was in an area of social policy was the Resettlement Agency, existing to provide board and lodging for persons without a settled way of life. The framework document for that body should have been a rather subtle instrument, but it did not even mention the size of the problem with which it had to deal, or what it proposed to do for its clients. Its only target was to abolish itself.
Now, a number of agencies are involved in social policy, having joined the Resettlement Agency. The largest of these has to do with social security benefits. They raise much more significant matters of public policy and parliamentary accountability. Decisions affecting thousands of our constituents have been handed over to a subsidiary of the Department of Social Security. Now we have the Fraser report, which raises more questions than it answers. I should like to put to the Minister a number of direct questions arising from it.
The first question concerns the treatment of staff. I have here three letters sent last month by the Office of the

Minister for the Civil Service to the Council of Civil Service Unions. I shall leave the Minister sufficient time to reply to the questions that have been put to him, and I hope that he will answer this point. The effect of the letters from the officer to the council is to deregulate annual reporting, deregulate promotion procedures and deregulate redundancy procedures. In effect, they abandon long-established redundancy agreements. More civil servants are being made redundant than at any time since the 1950s. Is it the intention to abandon all staff agreements on conditions of service in agencies? Paragraph 2.8 of the Fraser report proposes to give chief executives freedom to manage staff and resources in all areas, with a few specified exceptions. What are the exceptions? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question.
Secondly, we come to the framework documents, which are clearly crucial to the management of agencies and to which several hon. Members referred. Paragraph 2.4 of the Fraser report says that there should be agency targets and that they should measure financial performance, efficiency —both of which mean cost cutting—and the quality of customer service. Why does it not mention effectiveness in reaching out to those who could benefit from the services? Is it not the job of the Social Security Benefits Agency to increase benefit take-up rates? Is it not the job of the Training Agency to reach those people who need training but are not getting it? Will those targets be set?
So far, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has had two entirely different answers from two different Ministers on that point. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now the Chancellor, was asked whether it was legitimate for the new Social Security Benefits Agency to try to increase the take-up of benefits, he said:
I would not see that as a feature.
When asked the same question, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), then Minister for the Civil Service, said:
In principle 'yes' and they arc perfectly entitled to set that as a target.
What is the truth?
Thirdly, the Fraser report refers to cuts in headquarters staff of some 25 per cent. It quotes reductions in industry, under a similar devolutionary approach, of some 50 per cent. Those cuts will come in personnel and finance divisions, which happen to be the two places where civil service management is weakest. The report even talks about redefining the size and role of the Treasury and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. I never thought that I would see a Government report on "downsizing" the Treasury.
What is the size of that group in the civil service which is to be reduced? In the 30 main departments, it can hardly involve fewer than 100,000 staff members, virtually all working in London and living in the capital and its suburbs. When will they go? Will they suffer from deregulated redundancy arrangements?
Fourthly, it is the aim of the Fraser report to devolve personnel work from the centre and from the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service to the individual agencies. The Office of the Minister for the Civil Service will be cut, as I assume that the Minister will seek to set an example by reducing headquarters staff. When personnel work has been devolved, what will happen to central equal opportunities initiatives? There are no members of ethnic minority groups in the civil service in grades 1, 2 or 3 and


only five in grade 4. Women form 48 per cent. of civil service staff. They form 74 per cent. of the lowest clerical grade but 5 per cent. of grades 1 to 4. How will those problems be addressed when the civil service is a collection of 100 small businesses, with no power at the centre to impose equal opportunities guidelines?
Fifthly, why is the civil service still regulated by Order in Council—the royal prerogative? Surely it is obvious that we need a civil service Act to govern the employment and conditions of civil servants. The royal prerogative was used to deny civil servants trade union rights at GCHQ. A civil service Act should define the duties of civil servants to serve the Crown rather than the Government of the day. It should also define the rights of civil servants to belong to trade unions and the duties of an accounting officer. At present, the accounting officer memorandum, which lays down the responsibilities of permanent heads of department, has no legal standing. The only statutes that apply to an accounting officer are those under the National Audit Act 1983.
Will the terms and conditions of service of civil servants be legislated for, or will they continue to be governed by royal proclamation? Will the civil service continue to be an entity? If it ends up as 100 agencies and 20 or 30 core departments, there will have to be an active and professional department for the civil service at the centre. Surely there is no question but that the arts and the civil service should be combined in the portfolio of one Minister. That shows what the Government think of the arts and the civil service. It is a ridiculous combination.
Which of the agencies will be privatised? I happen to have two in my constituency—Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Having joined the civil service, my constituents should like to know how many of them will end up working for private companies. The two agencies which I mentioned are sufficiently commercial to be chosen for privatisation. If there were a list of forthcoming privatisations, as I am sure that there is, right at the top would be HMSO—so long as the Government could find a way to subsidise parliamentary documents—and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.
The Government boast of efficiency but, when one studies the background to their recent policies, one sees extraordinary inefficiency and huge cost of administration in relation to returns. The poll tax, the social fund, student grants and chasing errant fathers for maintenance are examples of such policies. There has never been legislation with such a low benefit-to-cost ratio. Civil service policy is not the only example of retrogression. Recently, there has been a growth in quangos. I remember when the Government were a great hunter of quangos but nowadays, instead of talking quangos, we have spending ones carrying out training, regulating gas, water and electricity and controlling pollution. Few of those expensive quangos are accountable to Parliament. Will the Minister explain their accountability?
Agencies are neutral. They can be used by a Labour Government for advancing the conditions of the people and for providing better services to the customer.
Alternatively, they can be used to cut costs—as these agencies will be used. They may be like HMSO or the Charities Commission. Under the Government, they will

drive down the living standards of their workers and will not actively seek to improve their services. If anything, they make worse the real problem of the civil service—its divisions on grounds of social class. It is still overwhelmingly dominated by mandarins. The cadre of the permanent sector is now more socially exclusive than it was in 1900. In last year's fast-stream entry, 55 per cent. of entrants had Oxbridge arts degrees and one came from a polytechnic. The Government have made no impact on that problem.
The tradition of the gentleman amateur in top management in British Government has done our country incalculable harm. It is a tradition that is indifferent to quantitative analysis, management and junior staff. That is the real problem in the civil service, and the Government have done nothing to broaden the formation of senior civil servants. Agencies are irrelevant to that problem and, although they could be used to improve quality, the Government will use them to cut costs. Under a Labour Government, they would be used to improve the quality of service, particularly in social policy, to outreach the service to potential customers, who now receive no service at all.

Mr. Rupert Allason: The question that the Opposition must answer on their ambiguous approach to this issue is whether they believe in putting first the interests of staff or those of the consumer. Next steps seeks to attain a complete change in culture within the civil service. Every hon. Member knows that dealing with the civil service—whether it is a matter of trying to get a passport in time or a replacement driving licence—is like dealing with a brick wall. We are trying to achieve a dramatic change.
A welcome change has been made in the driver vehicle licensing centre, and the results of Her Majesty's Stationery Office are gradually being improved. The Meteorological Office also shows every sign of improvement, and Ordnance Survey and Companies House have taken great initiatives.
The Public Record Office is a prime candidate for privatisation. It is a marvellous national asset that should be exploited. I find it offensive when people come to me, having studied documents in the Public Record Office, and ask why documents from the first world war are still classified "top secret" and not available. There should be an immediate change to the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 to allow the privatisation of the Public Record Office. We should be able to give the public far better service. They should be allowed to see all documents, unless there is a genuine national security consideration or somebody's life could be put at risk by premature disclosure.
The Public Record Office is a national asset. A good precedent for privatisation was when the BBC decided that it was also a national asset, with tremendous software programming. At one stage, only three people were working in the New York office of BBC Enterprises. It is now a major organisation, working to the great benefit of the BBC.
The Public Record Office is sitting on a veritable goldmine, yet it supplies absolutely free, although not entirely good, service, not just to the British public but to American academics and researchers from overseas. I should like to see the genuine exploitation of all the material. The Government and civil service should ensure


that they fully respect the 30-year rule. All material should go from Government Departments to the Public Record Office without being shredded. After 30 years, all that material should become completely available to readers of the Public Record Office. That would mean charging consumers and exploiting a priceless asset and would end the abuse and secrecy surrounding the Public Record Office.
People do not realise that, not only are several Government Departments excluded from the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, which means that Government Departments do not have to supply documents to the PRO; material is sent to the PRO after it has been what is euphemistically known as "weeded" by the civil service, and that material also remains closed. There are vast corridors of documents in the PRO that are entirely secret. At present, the PRO conspires with the Lord Chancellor's Office to ensure that that material is never seen by the public. That is a deplorable conspiracy. I should like to see something along the lines of a Freedom of Information Act or a change in the Public Records Acts to enable people—the taxpayers—to be able to see that material.
There is a great principle in the United States: if material has been paid for by the taxpayer, he is entitled to see it. Unfortunately, on this side of the Atlantic, we subscribe to the culture whereby material is not made available to the taxpayer because, if it were, it would mean that, heaven forbid, the civil service would be held accountable for the views and advice it gives to Ministers. That is the key to the culture of secrecy in this country, which a simple change to the Public Record Office or an aggressive approach to next steps could change. The retention of documents in the PRO is absurd.
This week has seen the anniversary of the arrival in this country of Rudolf Hess. How odd it is that, if one wants to read the true account of what happened to Rudolf Hess, one has to go to the national archives in America and pay 15 cents a sheet or to Dzerzhinski square in Moscow and ask the KGB for its version of the documents. They are available in both those places, but the British version of the documents is entirely secret.
If we were to take an aggressive approach to the privatisation of the Public Record Office and impose a 50-year rule, which would satisfy people on the national security grounds of retaining particularly sensitive documents, we could now be reading the documents prepared by the security service in 1940 relating to alleged fifth columnists, pro-Nazis and people who were considered sympathetic to the Nazis in 1940 and a possible danger to the Government of this country.
The PRO is a priceless asset which should be exploited in exactly the same way as the BBC has exploited BBC Enterprises. The BBC has made marvellous programmes over many years. That software has become available and is a source of tremendous financial advantage to the BBC. We should like to see exactly the same thing happen to the PRO. The driver and vehicle licensing centre has just begun on that path by selling some number plates. The Ordnance Survey could do much the same thing and Companies House could follow suit by supplying fast information to consumers.
At the bottom of next steps, and what we are asking for, is not just a change of service, but a change of the culture of secrecy which has so shackled this country and worked to the disadvantage of taxpayers. I should like to see a

change, not necessarily for the benefit of the staff of such organisations—many people believe that some of those organisations existed for the benefit of their staff, notably British Rail. We should take an aggressive approach to the next steps agencies which would work to the advantage of the taxpayer.

Mr. Renton: This has been a useful debate, and I am glad that we have been able to arrange it, as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee suggested. I particularly wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) for his wise speech, in which he drew on his extremely extensive knowledge of the subject. I am conscious that when he was in the office that I now hold, he oversaw the inception of the next steps policy from its beginnings. Now, as a member of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he will be able to see how that policy develops in practice. I am sure that the Select Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), will greatly benefit from the continuing interest and experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham in this subject.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham asked about transferring staff between agencies and policy areas. I thoroughly agree that such transfers are extremely important, and I hope that staff interchange will continue, both for staff development and for management needs. I hope that freedom in pay and personnel regimes, which will be increasingly flexible, will not be allowed to obstruct the transferability of which my right hon. Friend spoke.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for his speech. I wholly agree that a major part of the political debate of the 1990s will concentrate on better public service for the ordinary, average citizen of the United Kingdom and, I hope, a continuing interesting career structure with flexibility of pay for all those working in the public service. That fits in with the citizens' charter, on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made a number of interesting comments and on which a White Paper will come before the House before the summer recess.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was able to make a speech. I listened with interest to his not wholly unexpected remarks about the Public Record Office. I wholly agree with him about the need for better service to be the theme throughout the next steps agencies.
I thought that the comments of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) were disappointing—

Mr. Radice: Come on.

Mr. Renton: It is no good the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) saying, "Come on," because in his saner moods—when he spoke tonight, he was in a good sane mood—he will realise precisely why I say that. The hon. Members for Wrexham and for Norwich, South reminded me of the old saying that none rowed fast, but none so fast as stroke. There is support for the agencies in principle and in detail from the Government and Opposition Back Benchers, as was shown by the hon. Member for Durham, North. There is none—or there is havering—from the hon. Members for Wrexham and for


Norwich, South, which is disappointing. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) left the Chamber before being able to be reminded how much he is being let down by the two Opposition spokesmen.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South, despite his long-term interest in the subject, merely brought out the old sayings about mandarins and Oxbridge recruitment to the civil service. Why did he not give a single, constructive and intelligent comment about where the next steps initiative was going?

Mr. Radice: The Minister was not listening.

Mr. Renton: I was listening carefully, and I was extremely disappointed. I realise that the hon. Member for Wrexham does not know a great deal about the subject. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham said, the hon. Member for Wrexham has often shown confusion on the subject. But I expected more from the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who has served on the Select Committee for a long time. He merely trotted out all the old, trite phrases about next steps.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way; I have only one minute left and I want to answer some of the points made—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Dr. Marek: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renton: I will not give way, because I want to answer some of the questions—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat?

Dr. Marek: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Renton: I wanted to answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Norwich, South as I was intending—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is extremely bad behaviour.

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There can be no point of order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Ministers not to give way when they make personal attacks on hon. Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Renton: We will carry the process forward with vigour, and I am sure that it will be supported by the civil service and by the whole country.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is promoted by London Underground Ltd. It was deposited in Parliament in November 1989. It was given a Second Reading in another place on 8 March 1990 and committed to an Opposed Private Bill Committee which first sat on 5 June 1990. Some 36 petitions were deposited against the Bill in the other place. The Committee adjourned its proceedings on 11 June to enable the promoters to make certain changes to the Bill as a result of a petition from the trustees of the Borough market. The Committee reconvened on 3 December and concluded on 18 December 1990. I pay tribute to my former colleague on the Greater London council, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, who piloted the Bill through the other place.
The Bill stemmed from the recommendations contained in the Fennell report into the fire at King's Cross. The report contained 157 recommendations. Recommendation No. 62 said:
London Underground shall undertake an investigation of the problems of passenger flow and congestion in stations and take remedial action".
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to that recommendation at three busy stations: London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road. The measures are concerned with safety and the relief of passenger congestion, and aim to provide additional capacity for future growth at each station. Both elements are of great importance to Londoners.
Anyone who travels on the underground will have seen, as I have, the problems of congestion. The use of the underground increased rapidly during the 1980s. In 1981, there were 541 million journeys. In 1989 there were about 850 million—an increase of 57 per cent. Central London stations, already heavily used, became even busier. Usage increased by 38 per cent. during peak periods and by 53 per cent. over the day as a whole.
The three stations were constructed at a time of far lighter passenger flow and their features incorporate thinking on station design which is no longer acceptable, such as entrances to the ends of long, dead-end platforms —that is long platforms with the entrance and exit at one end—and limited space to deal with congestion and bottlenecks at the head and foot of escalators and stairways. The three stations have only one route to the street, although two independent means of escape other than by train are now required for new stations. The design of the stations coupled with the increased number of passengers mean that congestion is a regular occurrence.
For London Underground, congestion and safety problems go together. Congestion could, for example, lead to someone falling off the platform or could result in panic in an emergency. That is why the long title of the Bill is
An Act … for safety purposes and the relief of passenger congestion".
In line with the Fennell recommendations, London Underground is carrying out a review of 30 stations and is studying the problems of safety and congestion. The three

stations were given high priority for attention. At London Bridge, the platforms and access points to them were built in 1900. Over the past 20 years, use of the station has increased by 92 per cent. Under the Bill, the main work will be the construction of a new tunnel and line of railway which will enable the present southbound platform to be turned into a circulating area. As well as the existing station entrance, there will be a new ticket hall in Borough High street with escalator connections.
At Holborn, the present ticket hall was built in 1906 to serve the Piccadilly line. It was altered in 1933 when the Central line platforms were added. The station was used by about 35 million people in 1990, the figure having risen by about 50 per cent. since 1981. The ticket hall is small and is frequently closed for short periods on weekdays to avoid overcrowding. London Underground proposes to build an additional ticket hall beneath the junction of Southampton row and Theobalds road, and to build associated shafts and subways to the platforms below, which will provide an additional means of getting into and out of the station.
Tottenham Court Road has what everyone would agree is a remarkably small ticket hall, especially with the new ticketing machinery and with the safety measure of taking the machines back from the end of the escalator. The present ticket hall dates from 1929, and serves the Central and Northern lines. The hall is small, but it has to serve 35 million passengers annually. It is the sixth busiest station on the system and its use has grown by 51 per cent. between 1981 and 1989, leading to periods of closure as at Holborn. The main work at Tottenham Court Road station will be a new ticket hall at the corner of Oxford street and Tottenham Court road, with escalators to serve the Northern and Central lines and associated passageways to the platforms. That will improve passenger distribution and will give better access to Oxford street.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend refers to escalators. Although I appreciate that he may need to get some information, can he tell us whether the escalators will be built to a standard pattern so that if there is a problem about repair a new escalator can be put in straight away? Or, as with so many London escalators, will they be purpose-built for each station? There is great difficulty in getting replacements made because each escalator is a one-off job.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a background knowledge of these matters. When I was a member of the London Transport committee of the Greater London council, we specifically discussed escalators for the reasons that my hon. Friend has described. From my knowledge of that time, I realise that it is a difficult problem because of the unique way in which escalators have to be constructed. They often have to be carried in piece by piece through the ticket hall and then assembled. I note my hon. Friend's point and I will seek guidance. I may seek leave of the House to try to answer his question in due course.
The Bill is extremely important to London. Other hon. Members may want to raise important constituency matters. For my constituents and for those of other London Members, it is vital that the Bill is given a Second Reading without delay. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: I emphasise at the outset that I have no quarrel with the basic purpose of the Bill. The proposed works are entirely in line with the approach that was recommended for London Underground by the Fennell report following the tragedy of the fire at King's Cross. The improvements and the works leading to them which are set out in the Bill are worthwhile objectives.
I shall be brief in expressing my concern, which rests solely with clause 31, which effectively overrides the normal provisions of listed building protection for such buildings contained within the purview of any works relating to the Bill.
You will doubtless recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was jointly promoted by British Rail and London Underground, first came before us, it contained a similar provision. It was a rather sweeping provision, removing any listed building consent requirements for any of the buildings within the purview of the Bill. The Department of the Environment, even at that first stage of the Bill, expressed its reservations about that clause. English Heritage attempted to petition against the Bill but was refused locus standi to do so. However, the Committee that considered the King's Cross Railways Bill quite rightly drew attention to that clause and demanded that British Rail and London Underground remove it.
That was an entirely appropriate response to an attempt, by means of a private Bill, to overturn the impact of primary legislation. Such an attempt should not be made through the private Bill procedure. The Department of the Environment, English Heritage and the Committee were entirely right to reach that judgment.
Sadly, neither British Rail nor London Underground seem to have learnt the lesson from that experience. We already have tabled, although not yet debated, the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill which contains a similar provision. The London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill contains entirely worthy measures, but it also contains a clause that would override listed building provisions.
I do not want to hold up the works in the Bill, but I insist that London Underground goes through the proper procedures in relation to gaining listed building consent and seeking to do works in conservation areas, rather than attempt to overturn them by means of a clause in a private Bill. I hope that we may be able to get a commitment from the promoters of the Bill on the point about listed building consent. Failing that, I hope that the Committee that may be established to consider the Bill will treat the clause in exactly the same way as another Committee treated clause 19 of the King's Cross Railways Bill.
It is an important constitutional point that private Bills should not override the provisions of primary legislation. We have set in place listed building protection to protect our heritage. It is not the place of the private Bill procedure lightly to overturn that protection. I fear that clause 31 of this Bill is doing precisely that.

Sir John Wheeler: I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), because I, too, wish to refer to the great concern about clause 31 in the city of Westminster. I completely agree with what the hon.

Gentleman said about the proposal and the principles that the Bill would set aside. I, too, have considered the plea from English Heritage that there should be greater consideration of those matters, and I sympathise with its point of view.
I particularly wish to address the House on behalf of Westminster city council and the residents of the city who, while strongly welcoming the proposal to develop the new underground facilities which my constituents and the people who live and work in the city will commonly enjoy, are concerned about setting aside the provisions of primary legislation to further the speedy passage of a private Bill.
As a general principle, Westminster city council opposes the powers that are sought by London Transport in the Bill to demolish listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas without recourse to normal planning procedures. The city council believes that consent to demolish a listed building or unlisted building in a conservation area should be granted only when a satisfactory design for the replacement building is approved and when proper guarantees about the construction of the replacement building are provided. That, of course, is normally a condition of consent in the first instance. As a planning authority, the city council, which has responsibility for granting such consents, requires both those conditions to be met to ensure not only that a replacement building is of a satisfactory design but that no unsightly vacant sites are left following demolition. Westminster city council opposes the provisions of clause 31 because no guarantees on those important issues have been provided.
I wish that those who promote this legislation would recognise that wider concerns within the community, and especially in the centre of London, must be addressed. Such concerns force the House to make a difficult decision. Are we to divide and oppose the Bill or can we expect a reasonable approach from the sponsor of the Bill so that the concerns of English Heritage, my council and the city of Westminster can be met? I hope that I shall receive some encouraging comments.
Westminster city council has noted the findings of the Opposed Private Bill Committee which recently reported on a similar issue on the Jubilee line Bill with respect to the demolition of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street. The Opposed Private Bill Committee amended the Jubilee line Bill to require a resolution of the House to be passed, approving the design of the replacement of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street before the existing building can be demolished. The city council welcomes the committee's recommendation that the design of replacement buildings is important, but is concerned that it still provides no certainty that the replacement building will be built.
My council continues to oppose the Bill on that basis. Residents of the city and the 500,000 or so people who work in the city would want these important underground facilities to be developed, but I wish that there was greater co-operation between those who promote private legislation and the statutory authorities that are responsible for planning matters. It is recognised that there is widespread public concern about our architectural heritage and the environment, and those matters must also be taken into account.
I very much hope that the House will listen and that those with responsibility for this matter will respond helpfully.

Mr. Tony Banks: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) in expressing opposition to clause 31. I was just trying to do some quick checking to see whether the notice of motion relating to the attachment of environmental assessments to the private Bill proposals would cover the aspects of clause 31. I think that it probably would.
Clause 31 does not specify any of the buildings that might be affected, although I assume that plans have now been lodged. Perhaps the sponsor will indicate which historic buildings and listed buildings might be imperilled. Clearly, if the promoters of a private Bill were required to attach an environmental assessment, everyone would know precise details and promoters would be forced to look at that matter before they brought Bills to the House. That was one of the proposals made by the Joint Committee on I'rivate Bill Procedure, of which I was a member. Several other proposals to change the Standing Orders have yet to be brought before the House.
It is important that the private Bill procedure should not be used to circumvent normal planning requirements. It is being used by several large corporations, local authorities, other statutory undertakers and transport undertakings deliberately to get round public inquiries and local authority planning procedures. That is wrong. We should not allow ourselves to be complices in creating a fast track round planning requirements for organisations such as London Regional Transport and London Underground.
Even if we accept the motion on environmental assessments, it will be too late for this Bill, because in: has already started its passage through the House. The changes will apply only to Bills lodged from November.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) reminded me and the House that he was a member of the transport committee of the Greater London council. Undoubtedly he will be able to say, "Rejoice, rejoice" because tomorrow the Labour party launches its new proposals to establish a strategic body in London to be called the Greater London authority. I am glad to be GLA, but I do not know about the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Tonight we should have unity among colleagues on the two sides of the House. As Walworth road leaks like a sieve, I have read the document. However, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm.

Mr. Banks: Perhaps it depends on which version of the document the hon. Gentleman has read. I understand that several versions have been produced and that in the process the letters GLC have been removed. I am one of those who feel that we should stand proudly by the reputation, standing and works of the Greater London council. The hon. Member for Harrow, West reminded me that he was on the council. If he is nice to me, I might invite him to the first reception at county hall when the new Greater London authority is set up. He will have a place at the reception as an ex-member of the GLC.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West will be aware that when the GLC existed transport was under democratic control. Regrettably, that is no longer the case. One of the Labour party's undertakings in the document is that when

we have a Labour Government after the next general election, transport well return to democratic control and be controlled by the Greater London authority based in county hall.
I do not intend to oppose the Bill tonight. However, I have expressed my reservations about clause 31. The works proposed for London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn are desperately needed. The works at Tottenham Court Road are particularly necessary. The area is turning into one of the nastiest parts of London. The area around Centre Point, Oxford street, New Oxford street and Tottenham Court road looks filthy, tacky, nasty and run down. There are cowboys selling all sorts of things out of suitcases. As many tourists go to the area, we should feel ashamed that it reveals the picture of London that we want to remove. Again, the Labour party will address that matter in government and clean up the image of London.
It is clear that while the works continue there will be a great deal of disturbance to road surfaces in areas where the roads are already in an appalling condition. With the mess of deregulation, any number of bodies are allowed to dig up the roads. They include British Telecom, Mercury, Thames Water, British Gas and London Electricity. That is in addition to the development and building that is taking place in the area. The result is that London's roads are becoming ever more potholed. People find it dangerous to drive and walk around London's roads and pavements because of the appalling state of the surfaces. Damage to the surfaces is often caused by work carried out by the organisations that I mentioned.
I hope that, when the hon. Member for Harrow, West replies, he will give us some assurances that London Underground intends to take steps to avoid making our already appalling roads and pavements in London, especially in the Tottenham Court road and London bridge areas, even worse than they are now.
The hon. Member was right to say that the works were necessary to tackle overcrowding on the London underground. One of the reasons for the overcrowding is that the system has the least public support from central Government funding of all the urban networks in Europe. It is also the most expensive transport network in Europe. We have one of the most inefficient, perhaps the most overcrowded and dirty and the most expensive system in Europe. It is a wonderful combination of failings to come under all those headings.
I hope that when the hon. Member for Harrow, West replies about the state of the streets, he will also tell us—as he sits on the Government Benches—whether the Government intend to put more resources into London transport to give us the transportation system that a capital city such as London deserves. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to get it until we have a Labour Government in office and the Greater London authority sitting over in county hall.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There will be a fair degree of unanimity tonight on one point and less unanimity but some support on a second, and short lists of constituency issues will be raised on a third.
I agree with the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that it would be invidious to oppose a measure


which will create better safety on London underground. We all start from the premise that we want a safer underground system. We all remember the horrendous tragedy of the King's Cross fire and we are all aware of the clear recommendations of the Fennell report. We all want to ensure that the most congested underground stations become much more pleasant and safe environments, and that points of access and egress become safer.
There is no dispute about the principle of the Bill. We wish it good speed. One of the odd things about being a London Member at present is that on several occasions in the year we can be called to do our duty here, when various private Bills which affect our constituencies are introduced. This year, London Underground has promoted three Bills in the House which affect the London borough of Southwark, and especially Southwark and Bermondsey. First, the London Underground Bill was introduced to extend the Jubilee line. Then, London Underground realised that the Bill did not do all that it wanted, so we had the London Underground (No. 2) Bill, which again affected Southwark, and especially London Bridge station. Now we have the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, which also affects London Bridge.
If ever there was an illustration of the lack or inadequacy of strategic planning of transport and legislation for transport provision in the capital, it is the Bills introduced this year. I am fully aware that, behind the scenes, British Rail is preparing a proposal to carry out other works at London Bridge, which are likely to be the subject of a private Bill next year.
First, we had to contend with proposals for underground line works which will affect London Bridge station. Now we are debating proposals for works on the Northern line, which already exists at London Bridge station, and next year we shall debate proposals on the railway line. By any definition, that is not a logical way to proceed. The sooner we return to strategic planning of public transport in the capital city the better. That means that underground, bus, railway, river bus, road and eventually tram provision must be co-ordinated.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is bursting to make an obvious point.

Mr. Banks: It may be obvious, but I should like it to be put on the record that that is precisely what the new Greater London authority will do. We shall expect strong support from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was almost bound to anticipate my next point. The Liberal party, newly named the Liberal Democrats—

Mr. Snape: Among other things.

Mr. Hughes: No, we have only ever had two names, thank God, in spite of many attempts to give us other names in between. The Liberal party, now called the Liberal Democrats, supports a Greater London authority. We have always said so. One of the jobs for such an authority would be to plan transport strategically. There has never been any secret about that.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows that if some of the predictions for the

general election are right and there is no overall control in the country, as there is now no overall political control in London, his party and my party, which have similar views on many issues of co-ordinated planning, hope to implement similar policies. There is no secret about that. Together, we should have the votes in the House to bring it about. We would rescue county hall from being taken over by the private sector, or even buy it back if it had already been taken over.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman goes even further than we do.

Mr. Hughes: That is right, We are willing to put up taxes, too, which I heard the shadow Chief Secretary say yesterday in "On the Record" that the Labour party was not willing to do. Even if the Labour party goes less far than we do on the other matters, we bring it with us in relation to a co-ordinated London planning authority.
I want to ask a couple of questions which I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) will be able to answer if he is allowed to speak at the end of the debate. I want to ask him about the conjunction of four measures—three actual and one anticipated—that will affect London Bridge station. It seems to some of my constituents that the planning for the London Bridge part of this Bill, which is concerned with the Northern line, is now effectively under the control of the Jubilee line team —planning for London Bridge has been transferred. I do not object to that so long as we can find out who is really in charge.
Soon we shall debate again the Jubilee line and its effect on London bridge, so it is logical that the same people should plan the improvements under the Bill and those for the Jubilee line. It would also help my constituents—private residents and businesses—to know with whom they are dealing, and it would help to co-ordinate London underground developments if one body only were involved. Are the same people, the Jubilee line team, dealing with the developments at London Bridge station?
Secondly, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I share the strong reservations of the hon. Members for Newham, North-West, for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Westminster, North about clause 31. There is no justification for getting rid of planning controls over the civic heritage of London. This objection was also made by the Committee that looked into the King's Cross development. Planning controls are built into the system to protect our buildings and they ought to do so, especially when a major development such as the building of an underground station is to take place around them.
Will the hon. Member for Harrow, West tell the promoters that, if they persist with clause 31, they will run into substantial difficulty? I hope that they will not persist.
When the Committee on the London Underground Bill reported, it produced what the hon. Member for Westminster, North described as a compromise on Bridge street and the Jubilee line. It did not insist that the local authority should control planning permission, but it did insist that certain aspects were under the control of Parliament, because parliamentary buildings were affected. That argument does not apply anywhere else, so the promoters cannot expect to reach a similar compromise anywhere else. I hope that the Bill will be changed.
My two last questions relate to specific sites. The sponsor and the Minister may be aware that one of my


constituents petitioned the House of Lords, making the sensible and logical suggestion that the entrance to the underground station on the east side of Borough high street, rather than being one property south, down from St. Thomas's street, which would destroy the new Guy's restaurant, should be one property further up.

Mr. Snape: That sounds like a free meal.

Mr. Hughes: Even if there may be a free meal in the future, I have not had one there so far. Perhaps, as in the American legal system, one has to win the case before one gets the free meal. I shall have to try harder. Certainly I should be happy to have a free meal—[Interruption.] We have to make sure that the Official Report records our words accurately, so I must explain that once the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had implied that there was no such thing as a free meal, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that, coming from him, that was a surprising comment. That was an unfair allegation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): But typical.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, it was typical.
The idea of moving the station entrance is logical, quite apart from the benefit to myself and other Members who might get together and vote to preserve the restaurant. The building on the corner is owned by Barclays bank, which could afford relocation more easily than could Mr. Conti for his restaurant. If the station entrance were on the street corner because of accessibility and visibility to the public, that would be a more logical site. It is more logical to put underground station entrances on the corner of two main roads rather than just round the corner, so that they cannot be seen from both directions.
The site has become controversial because it is the local underground entrance for Guy's hospital. Perhaps it is a question of opting in or out.[Interruption.] I do not bank at Barclays, so my account is not at risk.
My other argument is about the site, at Nos. 31 to 37, on the other side of Borough high street. Hon. Members will be aware that there is sometimes a suspicion that promoters of Bills get carried away with the idea that, if they have the powers, they can take over a much bigger site than they need. That allows them to hold on to the property and thus derive a financial benefit. Compensation is often inadequate for existing owners. There is no dispute about that in the House. Compensation has, for instance, been hotly contested in the case of the Channel tunnel.
British Rail or London Underground, for example, acquires a site, digs its holes and makes an underground station entrance. Thereafter it has possession of the site and can build office blocks or retail sites, or sell. I do not say that the entire site is not needed in this case, but two questions arise in relation to it.
First, there is some residential property on the site now, and I understand that an undertaking was originally given to include some in the rebuild. But now, during the negotiations, no such undertaking is forthcoming. We need to retain every residential unit we have in an area such as London Bridge. Every development there risks our losing residential property in favour of commercial property.
It is difficult for residents to find other accommodation, and if they did so they would have to pay more, as they

have either a mortgage on a property acquired at a low cost before values rose, or a protected rent such as they would not find if they had to move somewhere else. In the case that I have in mind, a young couple bought the property some years ago. It is their home; they happen to live above commercial property. There is a strong general case for trying to preserve the mix. We should not remove residential property from our inner cities and replace it with office blocks. If nobody lives there, there is nobody around in the evening, and the environment is far less humane.
Why is there no clear commitment to keeping this residential property? We want a much more positive approach to the negotiations, so that, if the site has to be lost to the development, we secure a decent property at the end of the exercise.
I have asked several general and some specific questions. We are precluded from asking such questions in Committee, because we may not be on it. I hope that the message is getting through loud and clear. This may be the last time that London Underground or British Rail can, without environmental impact assessment, pursue legislation in this way. They should not assume that, because this is their last chance, there will not be a hard fight if they ignore what hon. Members seek.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful to restate the Government's view of the Bill. The Government have considered its contents and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by London Underground Ltd. The Bill will enable major works to be undertaken at London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road underground stations, to relieve congestion and improve conditions for passengers. The works at London Bridge are essentially for the Jubilee line extension, so that more passengers can be carried to that station. The works at Tottenham Court Road station will have to be carried out before the planned east-west crossrail station can be opened.
I hope that the House will support the proposals for better safety access at these stations. There are some petitions against the Bill, and the petitioners, if they pursue the matter, will have the opportunity to present their objections to a Select Committee. I am sure that the members of the Select Committee will have a much better opportunity than we have had in this debate to examine the issues in detail. They will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed concern about clause 31. I appreciate the firm views on this matter. As the House knows, the clause was substantially amended in the other place and now specifies only those buildings that will be affected by the works, showing whether they will be demolished or altered. The Government accept the amended clause and recognise that this is a sensitive issue.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment agree that there must be a compelling reason for making an exception to the normal statutory arrangements for protecting listed buildings.


They are agreed on that in view of the condemnation of similar provisions by a Select Committee which examined the Bill dealing with King's Cross.
Restricted and strategically important projects are being promoted in pursuance of the Government's policy objectives. Those could be at risk if the promoters were not able to secure in one procedure all the necessary consents for their schemes. That has some force as part of the argument that, if Parliament saw fit to authorise such schemes, it would be unreasonable for the promoters to be required additionally to apply for listed building consent to demolish or alter the necessary buildings.
In accepting that compromise solution, the Government are concerned to safeguard the position of English Heritage as an expert adviser on conservancy issues. It is able to contribute to the consideration of the works by the Select Committee, and that will assist the Select Committee to make informed decisions about the listed building aspects of particular projects. That means that English Heritage should be allowed to appear before the Select Committee on matters within its competence.
The Bill's clauses should contain details of the buildings that will be affected and in what way. Blanket clauses disapplying the listed building controls would not be acceptable. The environmental impact assessment for a project, which we intend to make compulsory for such Bills, would contain an account of the effect on the built heritage.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister should bear two matters in mind. First, there is a precedent in the House for English Heritage being denied locus standi in presenting a petition about precisely such matters in relation to a private Bill. There is no absolute guarantee that that fate would not befall English Heritage again. Secondly, although the Minister says that the removal of listed building protection would apply only in a very specific way, it still removes the protection of primary legislation. What is the Government's position on the rightness or wrongness of an inadequate private Bill procedure overturning protection that is written into basic legislation and reiterated in several Acts of Parliament?

Mr. McCloughlin: I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. My understanding is that English Heritage should be allowed to appear before the Select Committee. I am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, in which English Heritage was refused a locus. I hope that what has been agreed will go some way to putting that right.
The promoters would be obliged to consult English Heritage throughout the passage of the Bill. That would also be helpful to the promoters. It is not helpful for people to be in conflict, and a general attempt to reach agreement makes the passage of a Bill much easier.

Mr. Tony Banks: Have the Bill's promoters given a clear undertaking that they will accept evidence from English Heritage? If they object to such evidence, it will become a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. Under Standing Orders, if there is no direct locus—and there is not under the current private Bill procedure—the Standing Orders Committee would be bound to uphold

the promoters' decision. Have the promoters given the Minister a clear undertaking that they will accept a petition or evidence from English Heritage?

Mr. McLoughlin: I understand that that is the case. As I said earlier, there should not be a problem about that.
The Government are against Bills whose promoters seek a blanket disapplication of listed building control, or who do not consult English Heritage on these matters. We accept that the number of cases would be few and far between but, given the arrangements that I have outlined, the Secretaries of State would be prepared to support clauses which disapplied the controls in respect of specific buildings for particular works.
We accept the amended clause. The works at London Bridge and Tottenham Court Road stations are essential for the construction of the proposed underground line for London—notably the Jubilee line extension and the east-west crossrail route. I note that the Select Committee will examine the Bill relating to the Jubilee line. In allowing the Bill to proceed, agreement has been reached on a compromise clause, albeit with certain conditions in respect of the proposed parliamentary buildings. In these cases, the compromise clause maintains a proper regard for legislative controls designed to protect the national heritage while avoiding any duplication of effort and the potential risk of Parliament's wishes being overridden by a planning authority.
I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. Those hon. Members who spoke in the debate have welcomed the Bill. Congestion on our transport system is an important matter of public interest. If we delay the Bill's progress, we shall hold up, perhaps for some time, measures that are urgently needed to relieve the congestion on London underground.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House has given an unqualified welcome to most of the Bill's clauses, especially those which relate to the work that is necessary to relieve congestion and improve safety at London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn stations. All those who have used any or all of those stations know how essential these works are, and the Bill shows the importance of that work to the future operation of London Underground Ltd.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who is in charge of the Bill on behalf of the promoters, spoke about escalators at those three stations and in other parts of the underground system. Those of us who have used the London underground for a number of years are aware of the recent severe deterioration in that organisation. We are all apt to look back on our younger days as a halcyon period in which the trains ran on time and the sun shone every day, but having used the London underground system regularly for about 30 years, I know that I have never seen it in the state that it is in today. Regular and continuous work on escalators is, in my view and I suspect that of the vast majority of passengers, long overdue.
Like other hon. Members, I regularly use the underground between the terminal station at which I arrive in London and the House. For months, I have wandered around the bowels of Euston undergound station trying to get to the Victoria line to make my way to the House. The only work that I have seen on the


escalators at Euston has been the replacement, every six months or so, of the notices telling passengers that the escalators are temporarily out of order. There appears to be no sense of urgency about doing the work. As with other public sector industries since the Government's axe fell upon them, the work that needs to be done on the London underground can be done only if a budget exists. All too often, the budget does not exist, so the work does not get done.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Harrow, West, as a member of the Greater London council between 1980 and 1986, did not refer to these matters. Like other hon. Members, I served on the Committee considering the Bill abolishing the GLC, thereby removing from it responsibility for running the London underground. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the GLC at that time, even if I cannot honour him with the description of "distinguished member". I am sure that he was, but. I do not know.

Mr. Tony Banks: No, he was not.

Mr. Snape: I accept my hon. Friend's view, as he knows the hon. Gentleman better than I do.
While the Bill was going through the House, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), continually assured us that the London underground would be far more efficient when it was freed of the ideological constraints of the GLC. In Committee, one got the distinct impression that the right hon Gentleman hated members of the Greater London council even more than he hated the Germans. I am afraid that that hatred appeared to embrace all parties represented on that authority, although I am not sure how well the right hon. Gentleman knew the hon. Member for Harrow, West.
Over and over again, we were told that freedom from the political control of the elected strategic body would benefit the passengers. It is apparent from this Bill and from the words of Conservative Members that that has not been the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) gave us his objections to clause 31. He has made a similar point during the passage of other Bills through the House and it is no less relevant for that. He was joined in his strictures against clause 31 by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) who, as far as I am aware, was not a member of the GLC. However, according to "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", he is chairman of a body called the Conservative Greater London area Members committee. That sounds a n influential body, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would use his chairmanship to point out to the newly freed managers of London Underground Ltd. how objectionable clause 31 is not only to him but to his democratically elected and Conservative-controlled authority.
Given the well-known antipathy of the hon. Member for Westminster, North to the GLC and all its works., I am surprised that he is criticising a body to which he had given his whole-hearted support in the past. I should tell him and the hon. Member for Harrow, West that, if one creates a body like London Underground Ltd. and tells it that its only remit is to work within the financial constraints laid down by the Department of Transport, it will not be too keen on provisions such as those in the Bill, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and

Finsbury and Conservative Members, to preserve listed buildings and other important sites. If it has no remit to concern itself with such matters—unlike an elected strategic body—it is not surprising that it has drafted clause 31 in that way. However, it is surprising that Conservative Members have said that they are disturbed by the inclusion of that clause.
Conservative Members have, at least implicitly, criticised the management of London Underground Ltd. because of the necessity both for the Bill and the works included therein. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not with us tonight. I noticed in the London Evening Standard—surely one of the most appalling evening newspapers in the western world—some sage advice from the hon. Gentleman, a man known for understatement and delicacy of thought and mind, who represents the intellectual wing of the Conservative party. He had some harsh words to say about the management of London Underground Ltd. "Sack the lot" was the headline that proceeded his customary thoughtful words. If he feels like that about the management, it is understandable that there should be some criticism from others in the House. It is understandable, too, that two mild-mannered men like the hon. Members for Harrow, West and for Westminster, North should express those views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), expressed support, to a greater and lesser degree—I am not saying which is greater and which is lesser—for an elected Greater London authority, the GLA. My hon. Friend reminded us of the need for such an authority to co-ordinate not only the matters dealt with in the Bill but transport, street works and road planning within Greater London. Labour Members endorse that, and I suspect that if they were allowed to do so, one or two Conservative Members would like to do the same.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, in between plugs for a restaurant and Barclays bank, was forward in telling us how advanced are his party's views on the need for the election of a strategic body and how it would put up taxes—in the unlikely event that it were ever in a position to do so—to pay for this and other desirable objectives. I am not sure whether it would be right and proper for me to draw those remarks to the attention of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, but no doubt whatever the demand, whether for lower or higher taxes, for a strategic authority or not, for greater or lesser planning in transport, both public and private, in Greater London, a member of the Liberal Democrats can be found either to support or reject it.

Mr. McLoughlin: While the hon. Gentleman is drawing the attention of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to spending plans, will he tell us whether his commitment to various transport policies in London is an overriding commitment, a first commitment, an immediate commitment, a top priority or a commitment for a Labour Government many years away?

Mr. Snape: I am always fascinated by the interest of the Conservative party in pouring scorn and abuse on any Opposition Member who dares to suggest that our public


services—our transport system, our national health service and all other services where the rest of Europe has long since left us behind—

Mr. McLoughlin: Answer the question.

Mr. Snape: If the Minister will contain himself for a moment or two, I shall do just that.
Why should scorn be poured on any proposal to improve the services provided by London Underground Ltd., for example, so that they match similar services that are provided elsewhere in Europe? If he reads the document that is entitled "Moving Britain into the 90s" —if he wishes, I shall send him a copy free of charge—he will learn how the Labour party proposes to make improvements and how a Labour Government would pay for them. I shall be pleased if the Minister shows the document to the hon. Member for Westminster, North after he has read it. The hon. Member for Westminster, North can take it to a meeting of the Conservative Greater London area Members committee. It appears that it does not have a great deal to do in terms of clause 31 and other provisions. When the Minister has read my party's document and digested it, I know that he will agree with me and other Opposition Members that the works outlined in the Bill and the document are essential and agree with us on how sensible are the Labour party's proposals to pay for them.

8 pm

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall start by talking about clause 31. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said, but I do not trust promoters of Bills. I want to see an undertaking written into the Bill that will guarantee a locus for English Heritage. I think that that is the view of everyone who has spoken this evening and that it will be endorsed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on welcoming a compromise, but I do not believe that the compromise goes as far as it should in the interests of English Heritage.
I shall now make the one political remark that I intend to introduce into the debate. For seven years, I had the pleasure of being chairman of the Greater London Council Conservative Members Committee. For seven years, I had the privilege also of being vice-chairman of the Conservative party for London. During that time, we won more borough council elections and more parliamentary seats than hitherto, and we also won the Greater London council. We did so because we understood what the people of London wanted. We told them that a vote for the Liberals was a vote for a Lib-Lab pact. I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has repeated this evening the support that he and his party will give to the Labour party. There is a new Lib-Lab pact afoot, but, as the Liberal Democrats will not have the chance of supporting the Labour party except in opposition, I do not mind.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As we do not know what will happen after the next general election I invite the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg)—

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) be here?

Mr. Hughes: I shall be here. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has said that he will not be.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate knows that, at present, London is a capital city without the overall control of one council. All the authorities post-GLC are participants in some form of shared decision making. He knows also that, in those circumstances, there is no Lib-Lab or Lib-Con pact. Decisions are taken differently according to the authority and the subject on which a decision is to be taken.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I believe that London was better run when there was a Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and a Conservative GLC, but I make that the end of the politics.
I want to talk about the Bill, and especially about provisions that have been omitted. I hope that, by the time I have finished, which I hope will not be too short a time, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, who speaks for the promoter, will be able to give me an understanding. If he is able to do so, I shall not try to talk out the Bill this evening. If I am not given an undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to understand that there are at least two more stages in the Bill's consideration and that there are four more London Transport Bills, all of which I shall block at every stage. I wish to make my intentions clear.
From the time that I first entered the House, I have put my constituency interests ahead of everything else. I believe that my constituents are being given a raw deal by an insensitive and incompetent management of London Transport. In that context I refer to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Act 1893.

Sir John Wheeler: I know it well.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it contains only 139 pages. I do not propose on this occasion—I do not commit myself for future occasions —to read the 139 pages. I want, however, to make some references to the Act.
First, I shall explain to the House why I am blocking the Bill. In west Hampstead, by Broadhurst gardens, there is a series of railway lines. There is the British Rail line to Marylebone, the Jubilee line and the Metropolitan line, which are spanned by a footbridge. The bridge was built well over 100 years ago, and it has an interesting history. When I was a small child, I was taken by my uncle to the bridge to watch railway engines. I was a steam railway buff, and I still am. I am a non-executive director of the Bluebell line and I still like steam trains.
The footbridge was known as Granny Dripping's steps, a name that intrigues everybody. It seems that it received the name because an elderly lady was alleged to have sat on the steps eating bread and dripping. I never saw her, but the bridge retained its name.
Towards the end of last year, the bridge, which London Transport prosaically calls bridge No. 26, was closed. The chairman of London Transport replied to the letter in which I inquired when the footbridge would be brought back into operation. He wrote:
The footbridge is jointly owned by London Underground and British Rail, with the maintenance responsibility vested in London Underground.
Perhaps I should put British Rail on notice. As the bridge spans its lines, I shall be blocking its legislation so that it puts pressure upon London Transport to carry out its


responsibilities for the reason that the "maintenance responsibility" for the bridge is "vested in London Underground." The letter continues:
The footbridge is 110 years old and has been the subject of heavy repairs over the years. Recently, several of the stair treads on the BR side of the bridge collapsed and consequently the bridge was closed for safety reasons.
My civil engineers have again inspected the bridge. It is seriously corroded and even if the steps were repaired, it would not be safe for public use. We now appear to have two options; rebuilding a little used facility"—
how the chairman knows that I do not know, because no count has been taken. Those of my constituents who use the bridge are not too few and the chairman of London Transport has not been briefed about a major development that is in progress in the area. I shall come back to that matter in half an hour or so.
As I said, the chairman wrote:
We now appear to have two options: rebuilding a little used facility at a cost of perhaps £400,000 … or to seek parliamentary powers to close the footpaths and demolish the bridge.
I remind the House that the bridge has already been closed by London Transport in breach of parliamentary powers. The letter continues:
You will recall"—
that is a reference to myself—
that we pursued the latter course about eight years ago.
I blocked legislation on that occasion and, lo and behold, the bridge was reopened.
The chairman adds:
I am advised"—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian, and I have never known him abuse the procedures of the House. He has always adhered strictly to the terms of the business before the House, but I fear that tonight he is straying far. I understand that he wants to block the Bill. I am sure that he knows, however, that he must find reasons for doing so that come within the proposed legislation. I ask him to read the Bill carefully and to relate his comments more closely to the business that is before us this evening.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a Second Reading debate. I am speaking of things that should be in the Bill—I would not be able to do so on Third Reading—and I am contending that, within the Bill, there should be a reference to the footbridge where there are powers to make works. I shall not stray beyond that.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It may be helpful if I seek to reassure my hon. Friend. As he will know, it is not possible for anyone other than the chairman of London Transport to give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. I consulted London Transport officials both before this debate and while my hon. Friend has been making his speech. The chairman's letter from which my hon. Friend quoted dated 24 April states:
My statement that we would consider the position"—
that is, in respect of the bridge—
was not just a platitude.
I am asked to tell my hon. Friend that repairs to the bridge have certainly not been ruled out, but must be properly considered. I know that a meeting has been arranged between my hon. Friend and the chairman of London Transport, at which I hope progress will be made.

As my hon. Friend said, there will be other opportunities for him to pursue the matter—and to block the Bill, if he wants. I am not sure that I can go further this evening.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My problem is that the chairman stated in a subsequent letter that he had been advised that
it is not a practical option to repeat the sort of repair work eventually done at that time.
Therefore, I am not at all certain as to the true position.
I want to be clear that I am in order in referring to the issue that I have, and in seeking a specific provision in the Bill to cover it, because I do not want to abuse the procedures of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Currently, the hon. Member is in order.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill makes reference to "connected purposes"—and they include possession of land, incorporation of land provisions, and so on. Clause 46 of the 1893 Act to which I referred earlier refers to the protection of the vestry of St. John, Hampstead. It states:
Whenever the Company"—
that is, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire railway—
shall break up or disturb any part of the soil or surface of any road or footway in the said parish for any of the purposes of this Act, the Company shall within four months after any such road or footway shall have been broken up as aforesaid complete and finish the works of the Company, and shall make good and restore every such road or footway to the satisfaction of the surveyor to the vestry".
I could continue to quote from that legislation and remain in order, but instead I will make the point that the Act does not say anywhere that a right of way is to be extinguished —but that is clearly the intention which has been clearly expressed in the letter to me from London Underground. That is not the way that it ought to proceed.
In continuing, I shall seek to remain strictly within the rules of the House in respect of private legislation and Second Reading debates. A letter from the Combined Residents Association of West Hampstead states:
I am writing to offer you my congratulations for the stand you have taken over the closure by London Underground of the West Hampstead footbridge and your tactics in blocking their Bills until they agree to make the necessary repairs or proffer some reasonable proposal.
I welcomed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, and I look forward to my meeting with the chairman of London Transport. However, I am confused by the contents of his second letter, which appears to mark a change of position since his original communication.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is difficult to make a judgment without seeing the letter from which my hon. Friend quoted, but when the chairman of London Transport commented that it would be impracticable to repeat the previous repairs exercise, perhaps he was referring to work to bring the bridge back into service for five to eight years —and that, were London Transport to undertake any work, it would be more permanent. Perhaps my hon. Friend will find that interpretation encouraging.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I cannot yet say whether I am encouraged by it. Had London Underground carried out normal annual maintenance, the situation would not have arisen.
I refer again to the letter from the combined residents association:
First, the cost figure of £400,000 sounds excessive. It brings to mind the inflated cost estimate for the repair of the Ribble Valley viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle railway line by British Rail when they were proposing its closure. If my memory is correct, once the line was reprieved the figure became much lower! Surely there must be a reputable private sector contractor in need of work … who could do the work for less.
On 27 April, Mr. E. Dixon, chairman of the Jubilee and Bakerloo users group committee, wrote to the chairman of London Underground as follows:
Some of our users in west and south Hampstead are very concerned about the closure of this bridge. I know myself that its condition has been suspect for a considerable number of years—having on occasion to use it to travel between Canfield Gardens and Crediton Hill, or on going from Broadhurst Gardens across to the relevant part of Finchley Road. Usage of the bridge may be low, but it will be appreciated that the Charterhall scheme at Finchley Road will probably have a significant effect in this regard.
Now the bridge is a right of way. As such it is part of the trade-off under which we are unable to travel on the Jubilee line (or alternatively the Metropolitan or BR Marylebone lines). Surface railway lines in urban communities are often highly antisocial in their severance effects (as I and my neighbours know to our own heavy cost in time in Camden's nearby Kilburn ward, when the railway was 'there first'. However, its privileged position is accepted, notwithstanding the local detriment, and (though this does not apply at all to the Marylebone line and only most marginally to the Metropolitan line), there is at least some trade-off in usage of the line by the local community, and in the associated spin off benefits. However, in local terms the balance is seriously adverse; yet the operator is not compelled to address this by providing bridges where none existed and there are no rights of way.
By precisely the same token, the privilege of the right of way falls to be accepted by you as the operator and by us as the benefiting users of the railway line. This is not a matter in which the luxury of 'priorities' can be indulged. It is basic to the operators' right to operate over the land in question and to ours as service users to travel there…and we call upon London Underground and British Rail to meet the relevant obligations.
I acknowledge of course the importance of a Bill that includes the words "safety measures" in its title. However, that does not mean that we should give the Bill a fair wind without protecting the interests of our constituents or—as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said—those of English Heritage. Otherwise, the inclusion of the words "safety measures" in any Bill could allow it to pass happily through the House.
What opportunities does the Bill provide for improved safety measures and for satisfying the demands of my Hampstead constituents? The closure of the bridge in question adds at least 10 to 12 minutes to the journeys of pedestrians, who are compelled to walk the entire length of Broadhurst gardens, into Finchley road and on to Finchley road or Frogmore stations, or to reach the public library in Arkwright road.
London Transport ought not to be allowed this Bill without a clause which would guarantee the perpetuation of the right of way which stems back more than 100 years, providing a footbridge over the railway lines that I mentioned.
It is incumbent upon a public authority that promotes legislation not to ride roughshod over a particular interest affecting local people in an area. I am wondering whether London Transport hoped that once the bridge was closed

the problem would quietly go away and no one would notice. However, that is unlikely to happen in constituencies like Hampstead, where constituents are prone to letter writing and are active in bringing matters to the notice of their Member of Parliament. On this occasion I had already written to the chairman of London Transport because I realised the problem early on.
If someone gives an undertaking in an Act of Parliament and later seeks—it does not matter whether it is 50, 80 or 100 years later—to abolish it, it leads one to wonder whether any undertakings given in this Bill, or in any other promoted by a public authority, such as a local council or the railway authority, are worth the paper they are printed on. That is my worry. It is easy to shrug off a responsibility, but that is not what Acts of Parliament are for, and I do not believe that the House welcomes that concept. However, if we pass this Bill that is the risk that we are running.
Footbridge No. 26, Granny Dripping's steps, had been closed and was due to be extinguished. Why is there no reference to its demolition in the section of the Bill on various works to be carried out, because that must be a safety measure? Why is there no reference to abolition of the right of way? At least that would give the House the chance to say whether that should happen. Or, as an alternative, why is it not stated that powers will be taken in this Bill to repair or renew the bridge?
I know the chairman of London Transport, who is a highly honourable and reputable man, but I have to face the facts as they are presented to me at this stage. I emphasise the word "facts". They do not give me confidence that I can return to my constituents and tell them that Granny Dripping's steps are saved and will be replaced, and that they will be able to walk across them on their lawful business, either to go to West Hampstead north London link station, or to the library or the development which is under way to provide a vast new supermarket for the benefit of local people.
I hope that I am an eminently reasonable man, and I am tempted not to continue for too long tonight, in view of what my hon. Friend for Harrow, West has said. I appreciate that those who are guiding him tonight—pleasant though they may be—do not have the authority. Because I am seeing the chairman and the deputy chairman of London Regional Transport later this week, I am inclined to adopt a reasonable attitude.
I have many other matters to talk about. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are several schedules and 33 clauses in the Bill, and as you rightly said, keeping strictly in order, if I spoke for five minutes on each— because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West did not explain much of what was in the Bill—I could take 33 times five minutes. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would be able to find the 100 Members necessary to bring the debate to a close this evening. However, I shall talk about one or two items, not all 33.
Clause 25 makes certain provisions for the protection of the British Railways board. I remind the House that, in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Act, 1893, clause 46 was for the protection of the vestry of St. John, Hampstead. As I said earlier, that protection is about to disappear by a back door method. How safe is the protection outlined in clause 25? The clause talks about "designated property" and "plans" which include
drawings and particulars and 'approved plans'".


All that sort of information appears in the 1893 Act, which talks about maintaining
to the satisfaction of the surveyor of the vestry all … footways, bridges works and conveniences as shall be necessary for the safe and commodious ingress and egress to and from the houses on the line of the works of the Company in the said parish and for the preservation and continuance of an uninterrupted supply of gas and water to the said houses".
I wonder whether the chairman of British Rail is as happy today with the protection that has been given to his board as he was when the Bill was drafted. Further on, the Bill talks about the railways board giving
to the engineer not less than 28 days' notice of their intention to commence the construction of any of the specified works".
It also states:
The specified works shall when commenced be carried out … with all reasonable dispatch … and … as little interference as may be with the conduct of traffic on any railway of the railway board and the use by passengers of designated property".
I believe that the 1893 Act could give powers to the vestry of St. John, Hampstead, which became the metropolitan borough of Hampstead in 1899, and the London borough of Camden in 1965. Therefore, the surveyor of the London borough of Camden, who is by default the surveyor for the vestry, could demand that certain works be carried out,
and the Company shall also defray the expense incurred by the vestry".
It would be interesting to know whether, if the London borough of Camden decided to carry out work to repair the bridge, London Underground would decide that it could do it better and that it would rather do so than let the descendant of the surveyor of the vestry of St. John, Hampstead carry out the work. That is one reason why I am a little uneasy.
Clause 24 deals with the incorporation of protective provisions. It protects gas, water and electricity undertakers. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West to its reference to section 42 of the London Transport Act 1963, which applies to the protection of the gas, water and electricity undertakers, and section 13 of the London Transport Act 1976, which applies to the protection of the sewers of Thames water authority. Does that refer only to sewers and foul-weather sewers or to the pipes that provide fresh drinking water? There is a difference between the water mentioned in the 1963 Act and the sewers in the 1976 Act, but the Bill is not clear.
Clause 24 becomes less clear further on, because subsection (2) refers not to Thames water authority but to Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Is that a reference to foul sewers and fresh water?
It would be wiser and kinder if I began—only began —to draw my remarks to a conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West tells me that I might have read more into the words of the chairman of London Transport than I have so far. That would allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate, but I cannot promise that I shall be as generous on later stages of the Bill.
As I should not wish to fall foul of a future ruling from the Chair—I have carefully kept my comments in order tonight—I shall table probably a dozen amendments, which might provide me with the time to make London Transport realise, if it does not realise now, that I am serious about acting in the interests of my constituents.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West will be able to answer the point that I made about

water, but I give notice that, if necessary, I shall return to the subject, much invigorated, with a variety of amendments that I shall draft carefully with those who understand how they should be drafted so that I cannot be told by the Minister or the promoter that they are out of order. I await the next instalment.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made by hon. Members and work myself up to a crescendo to answer some of the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg).
In fact, I shall start with my hon. Friend, who asked whether the escalators would be standard or special escalators. Special escalators will be installed, because most escalators cannot take the load of several tonnes of passengers at a time for 24 hours a day in a dusty environment while remaining in place as a fixed staircase to facilitate maintenance and emergency procedures. Although they will be ordered from several suppliers, they will all be built to a standard London Regional Transport heavy-duty specification. The implication is that spares will be interchangeable.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That is helpful, but I cannot understand—perhaps my hon. Friend will arrange for someone to write to me about this—why escalators cannot be a standard length. Escalators should be a standard length, except for the last part, which might have to be a different length. One of the reasons for the appalling delays in repairing escalators is that the length of each one is different. I know that they will be the same specification, but they are all different sizes. Can that be avoided in future?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I remember such debates from my experience on Greater London council. His remarks have been noted and I shall ensure that the promoters write to him.
The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who explained that he would not be able to remain for all the debate, asked about clause 31, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The clause has been substantially modified since the Bill was deposited in the light of the comments of the Opposed Private Bill Committee that considered the King's Cross Bill. It has been limited to specified buildings and to only the purposes needed for the Bill's objectives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment supported that modification, which was made on Third Reading in the other place, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport instructed the chairman of London Regional Transport to give an undertaking to consult local authorities and English Heritage. The chairman of LRT has agreed to do so.
The Bill proposes to delist only one listed building—it is important to put that in perspective—that previously had consent for partial demolition. All other demolitions and alterations are minor—new entrances and protection against settlement—and in each case consent will be sought from the planning authority for all changes and alterations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the listed building that is proposed for demolition?

Mr. Hughes: I shall ask the promoters to write to the hon. Gentleman about it; I should quite like to know as well.
Clause 31 seeks to secure all necessary consents through Parliament so that Parliament's will cannot be thwarted by subsequent decisions and to avoid delay. I can give an assurance that the three local authorities concerned have been consulted and, so far, have not opposed the proposed works.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend will recall that I specifically requested that a locus for English Heritage should be included in the Bill. Is he prepared to say that that will happen?

Mr. Hughes: I hope that the assurances I have given are sufficient for my hon. Friend. I do not know enough parliamentary draftsmanship to know whether such an inclusion is possible, but I shall ask the promoters to write to my hon. Friend to ensure that that point is explored. However, the assurances that I have given on what will happen are firm ones. London Regional Transport wants to maintain a constructive attitude towards English Heritage and it will seek to consult it at all relevant stages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) spoke about the planning powers in the Bill and the concerns of the city of Westminister, which have principally arisen because clause 31 supplants that city's responsibilities. I have been instructed that the city of Westminister does not object to the works proposed at Tottenham Court Road. The clause simply avoids any risk of overriding Parliament. I repeat my earlier assurance that it is LRT's intention to consult on every stage of the process.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is unable to be present because of another appointment, spoke about the environmental impact of the work and road surfaces. Environmental impact studies have been carried out for all the proposed works and were exhibited to the Committee in the other place. The work requested by the hon. Gentleman has already been done. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the problems caused by digging up the roads, the disruption caused and the state of the road surfaces. An undertaking has been given to each of the highway authorities concerned that the work on the highways and footpaths will be carried out in such a way as to leave them in an acceptable condition.
All the work will be carried out subject to a code of construction practice agreed with the local authorities. That code will cover working practices, noise, dust emissions and lorry movements. The work on London Bridge will take three years, at Holborn, three years and at Tottenham Court Road, four years. I appreciate that those works will cause disruption, but as much as possible has been done to seek co-operation with the local authorities under the code of construction.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about the co-ordination of work at London Bridge. I listened with great interest to what he said about what has happened and what might happen. I share his sympathy for his constituents who live near London Bridge—an area which is being disrupted constantly.
The scheme at London Bridge will be constructed in conjunction with the Jubilee line works, using the same

working site. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is right to assume that the project will be under the control of the Jubilee line project team. The hon. Gentleman made two specific points about the location of two of the entrances to the station. It seems that, when it comes to the ticket hall at Borough high street, the hon. Gentleman wants a meal in the restaurant rather than a bank account at Barclays.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That might be unwise.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps a cashcard would be better.
I am advised that the Barclays bank building cannot be used as a station entrance because, given the location of the escalators, that would put it on the "paid" side of the fare gates—apparently those escalators cannot be moved. The entrance must be further south than the Barclays site would allow.
Planning consent will be sought from the London borough of Southwark for 31 to 37 Borough high street. A planning brief is being prepared to outline the acceptable uses and developments. I am advised that no undertakings to build residential property were given, but I appreciate the emphasis that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey put on the importance of such property. Reading between the lines of the instruction that I have been given, I believe that this matter should be taken up, with vigour, with Southwark borough council. I accept that it is an important one.

Mr. Simon Hughes: At present those properties are used for residential and commercial purposes. I understand that the implication was that that mix of use would continue and, obviously, this matter should be resolved. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) appreciates that I am keen that London Underground—it will acquire the site if the Bill goes through—should support such a mixed development. It will be responsible for the redevelopment and it should not seek to replace the small amount of residential accommodation with a non-residential development.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is important that there should be a mixed development. The promoters will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The planning brief will be prepared shortly and it is important that those who want the mixed development to be retained should put their argument strongly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made me think about a film that is known by a different title in the industry. "A Bridge Too Far" is often known as "A reel too long". If we have a bridge too far for LRT, will it be known as "Granny Dripping's steps"? I am sure that we are all impressed by my hon. Friend's enormous concern for his constituency. Those of us who have worked with my hon. Friend in the House and outside know that to be his customary concern, which is of prime importance to him.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a speech of reasonable length and he made his points forcefully. My hon. Friend will know that I am not trying to soft-soap him. If I wanted to do that I should have intervened and sought to curtail his speech. My hon. Friend has expressed the concerns of any hon. Member seeking to protect the rights of his constituents.
My hon. Friend raised specific questions about undertakings that were given in the past, some way back. He asked what they meant in terms of LRT and British Rail and what liabilities they may or may not have. Those issues must be explored in great detail at the meeting that my hon. Friend is to have with the chairman and other officials of LRT.
The cost of building the bridge must also be examined. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate has had great experience of local government in London and he will be aware that the cost of anything fluctuates depending on the hoped-for result at that time. I am sure that he will pursue the matter with vigour.
I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's question about clause 24, which relates to the London Transport Act 1963, and section 2 of the London Transport Act 1976. He asked whether section 2 refers to foul sewers and/or fresh water. I have asked the promoters to prepare an answer for my hon. Friend as it is important that the matter should be got right.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for their support for the Bill. It is important for London, for every single London constituent, for every Member who represents London and for every hon. Member whose constituents travel to London. I urge the House to give the Bill the Second Reading that it deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Environmental Assessment

Motion made and Question proposed,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made:
'27A.—(1) Subject to paragraph (8) below, in the case of a Bill authorising the carrying out of works the nature and extent of which are specified in the Bill on land so specified, there shall be deposited on or before 4th December in the Private Bill Office and at the Public Departments at which copies of the Bill are required to be deposited under Standing Order 39, either

(a) a copy or copies (as specified by paragraph (2) below) of an environmental statement containing, in relation to the works authorised by the Bill, the information set out in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as "Schedule 3") or such of that information as the Secretary of State may in any particular case direct, or
(b) a copy or copies (as so specified) of a direction by the Secretary of State that no such statement is necessary in relation to the works authorised by the Bill.
(2) The number of copies required to be deposited under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above shall be three in the case of a deposit at the Department of the Environment and one in any other case.
(3) Where any such works authorised by a Bill relate to two or more distinct projects each project may be treated separately for the purposes of paragraph (1) above; and the references in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph to the works authorised by the Bill shall accordingly be construed, where the paragraph applies separately to each project, as references to the works comprised in that project.
(4) Notwithstanding any direction given as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, any environmental statement of which copies are deposited under this Order shall contain the summary (referred to below as "the non-technical summary") required by paragraph (2)(e) and, where material, paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.

(5) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, a copy of the direction shall be deposited with every copy of the environmental statement deposited under this Order; and every copy of a direction so deposited or deposited under paragraph (1)(b) above shall be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State of his reasons for giving the direction.
(6) Copies of every environmental statement deposited under this Order shall be made available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, on and after 4th December, at the offices at which copies of the Bill are required to be made available under Standing Order 4A; and there shall also be made available separately on and after that date at those offices, for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price, copies of the non-technical summary.
(7) The reference to Schedule 3 in this Order is a reference to that Schedule as amended from time to time and includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any regulations which re-enact the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, with or without amendment; and references to particular paragraphs of Schedule 3 shall he construed accordingly.
(8) This Order does not require the deposit of copies of an environmental statement in relation to any works for which planning permission has been granted.'.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the following amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing):

(a), in line 7, leave out 'either (a)'.
(b), in line 12, leave out from 'or' to end of line 13.
(c), in line 12, leave out 'of that' and insert 'additional'.
(d), in line 13, leave out from 'direct' to end of line 15.
(f), in line 16, leave out '(a) or (b)'.
(h), in line 21, leave out 'references' and insert 'reference'.
(i), in line 21, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of'.
(j), in line 25, leave out from `(4)' to end.
(k), in line 29, leave out paragraph (5).
I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to debate the motion and the amendments together. If the hon. Member wishes to move his amendments formally later, I shall give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am obliged to you for that introduction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you have suggested is what I, given time, may do. We have reached this business a little later than we expected. It is important that, when there is a grievance, the House should discuss a single bridge over the Metropolitan line, but we have now moved to very important matters relating to environmental legislation that will affect the whole country for years—possibly 10, 20 or even 50 years. The change in Standing Orders relating to what is wrongly called private legislation can determine what Committees of the House may take in evidence and what they recommend to the House. Indeed, a Committee may even dispose of a Bill before sending it back to us. These are not small matters; they are the ball-bearings on which the wheels of democracy turn. The purpose of this debate is to determine whether the House should agree to new Standing Order No. 27A concerning private business.
In principle, everybody agrees that there should be such a Standing Order, introducing a near-requirement for an environment assessment to accompany all Bills requiring works to be carried out. However, there are several question marks over what has happened. First, there is the question whether the procedure that the Department of


the Environment has used in respect of the proposed Standing Order, which, although it has been moved by the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, clearly has the Government's understanding. Secondly, there are questions about the extent to which this measure is good enough and about the terms in which it opts out of the requirement for an environmental assessment.
These matters are not altogether simple, but, had there been environmental assessments for previous Bills, such legislation as the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, the Lyndhurst Bypass Bill, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill, the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill, the Midland Metro Bill, the Greater Manchester (Light Rail Transport) Bill, and hybrid Bills, such as the Severn Bridges Bill, the Channel Tunnel Bill and the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, might have gone a different way. In the future, such Bills— in so far as there will be such Bills— could be affected by this Standing Order. There is, for instance, the expected Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
The matter has been somewhat muddied because, to date, the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the scope of the Bills that are expected to be removed from the purview of the House in a Bill which is likely to come before us in the autumn. We have learnt that that measure will include Bills relating to main railways, light railways, waterways, ports and harbours. Thus, a good deal of private legislation will not come before the House and, therefore, will not be subject to an environmental assessment, which, in principle, is accepted by everybody.
At 2.30 pm on 13 March, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means moved a clutch of new Standing Orders, including Nos. 204A and 208A, which removed the powers of Members to debate certain amendments tabled by Members of this House or by Members of another place. Unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity to debate those Standing Orders. Perhaps the fault was partly mine. The matters were controversial. On that day I was able to object to this Standing Order but, through inadvertence, did not object to the rest. However, we now have an opportunity to discuss this very important matter of environmental assessment.
I wish to deal first with the procedural background to the Standing Order. Then I shall deal with Private Bill procedure and with consultations about the Standing Order. Finally, I shall discuss the amendments, which I commend to the House.
I do not think that anybody objects to the 2.30 pm procedure. Everybody understands it. Indeed, tonight's debate on the London underground was a result of it. However, that changes in Standing Orders could be approved on the nod at 2.30 pm was a surprise to everybody.
I understand that the proposed change is partly the result of an EC environmental directive which requires that all planning inquiries shall have before them an environmental assessment of the planning application. This Standing Order deals with that matter in the context of private Bills. On 26 February, the Department of the Environment sent to interested organisations a letter saying that this was to be done. It asked those organisations to submit their comments by 23 April. Unfortunately, for reasons which are to some extent

wrapped in mystery, before the end of that consultation period the authorities of the House, or the Department of the Environment—or perhaps both—put down the draft Standing Order on 13 March. But for chance, we might not have been able to debate it at all. It might have gone through on the nod, together with the other Standing Orders, to some of which I have referred.
I hope that the Minister can provide some clarification. Everybody, whatever his political views, agrees that environmental matters are important. It is therefore very unfortunate that such matters should be dealt with in this way. Bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Countryside Commission were caught a little short, to say the least. One reason is that, although hon. Members who peruse the full vote of the House could have known that the Standing Order would come before us, there was some difficulty as the full vote is a rather expensive item.
Hon. Members receive papers from the Vote Office, and are obliged to the Deliverer of the Vote and his staff for their efficiency. Perhaps we are unaware, therefore, of the degree to which official parliamentary documents are not easily available to members of the public. Yet they are public documents. If people are not aware of what Parliament proposes to do, they do not have an opportunity to alert Members to precipitate debates such as this or to inform themselves and participate in the process. That is true not only of individuals but of bodies. The many important bodies which I mentioned were not really aware of that. They told me that they did not take the full vote, despite their intense and proper statutory interests. They have statutory duties in respect of privately promoted legislation.
I took some trouble to find out the position and I understand that, if one orders the vote as a private person or as a body, one cannot do so on a fixed sum but must pay retrospectively for each page. Hansard of 8 May sets out the current cost of that vote in various Sessions. I shall not deal with exceptionally long Sessions, but the cost of that vote in the 1988–89 Session was £4,800. That is disgusting news to many hon. Members and to many long-serving staff members. I asked for an estimate for the current Session, given the size of the order, and was told that it would be £ 3,800. From 14 April, HMSO has put up the cost of the vote from 13p to 20p, an increase of 7p per page —a 40 per cent. increase. Will the Minister draw that matter of public importance to the attention of the Minister responsible for HMSO and the Leader of the House?
I draw the Minister's attention also to the response to the letter dated 26 February signed by Mr. C. L. L. Braun of the planning and development control division of the Department of the Environment. Paragraph 3 of that letter said:
The Department may wish to make responses to this letter available to Parliament and open for public inspection in the Department's library.
That would not have been much good because the order came to the House before the responses had arrived. I made further inquiries about that and, in a parliamentary answer dated 16 May from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, it is clear that the Government received
35 responses to the consultation paper, most of which welcomed, and none of which object to, the principle of requiring environmental assessment for private Bills for


works projects. A list of responses has been sent to the libraries of both Houses and copies of the responses have been placed in the Department of the Environment library at Marsham Street.
Leaving aside the fact that we would not have had the opportunity to see those responses because of the events of 13 March, I would not wish to trail to the library at Marsham street—although it is not far—to read those responses. I should have thought that responses relating to Standing Orders should be placed in the Library, as was envisaged in that helpful letter.
When that possibility was dangled before the respondents, why were those responses not available? They have come to the attention of various Member and some of my hon. Friends have been given documents, although by the respondents and not by the Government, who placed a list in the Library.
Private Bill procedure is highly controversial and will be the subject of a Bill in the autumn, a preview of which was given in a press release today. A joint Select Committee was set up by both Houses of Parliament. It reported in the 1987–88 Session in document HC 625. Paragraph 80 of that report recommended that an environmental assessment should be incorporated in all private Bill procedure. The Committee went on to say that there was some doubt about whether under article 1(5) of the directive.
the project would be subject to environmental assessment, and…if so, what information would be required to be submitted in an environmental statement. The Secretary of State's determination should be required to be deposited and advertised along with the bill, together, where he has determined that the project would otherwise be subject to environmental assessment, with an environmental statement containing the specified information. The documents submitted should be required to be produced to Examiners, and the promoter should be required to show that any environmental statement submitted by him contains the specified information".
As it is not fully clear to me, will the Minister explain why the Government claimed in evidence to the Committee that such a step was necessary? We may need to determine whether it is required by the relevant article of the EC directive, but surely that should be a matter for the House and the Committee. Why should it be a matter for the Minister to decide? Of course, the Government will have a view, which they will make known, as they make their views known under the private Bill procedure— we had an example of that tonight. But why should the Government be the determinant and the adjudicator of what the Committee on the private Bill may or may not do?
I should have thought that, on a matter of pure principle, the House should question whether such action came within the Standing Order. I do not know whether, within its Standing Orders, the House has ever bound itself to statute. The motion states that the Standing Order should contain
information set out in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as 'Schedule 3')—
the current statute. If that legislation changed, the Standing Order would also change. Is it right for the Select Committee discussing a private Bill to be tied to the terms of a statute that can be changed at will by a Minister, by a negative order?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I support what he has

said. Although he and I disagree on one aspect of the implementation of the motion, does the hon. Gentleman accept that another disadvantage of the proposition is that if, for example, on a European directive such as that relating to Government road-building policy in Twyford Down, Hampshire, the Government believe that they are acting legitimately, but the European Community decides that the Government are not, it is preferable for the House to be able to be a second, internal court of reference? That would prevent us from being hauled up and prosecuted by the European Community. We should not have to rely merely on what is increasingly shown to be a defective check mechanism on Government, the result of which is the prosecution of Britain, because the House of Commons could have protected us from both the prosecution and the bad policy.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for further underlining my point.
Some of the respondents, including the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Ramblers Association, have said that the Minister's certification in proposed Standing Order No. 27A(1) (a) and (b) is a determination against which there is no appeal. I should imagine that the Select Committee could not appeal, unless it came back to the House and said that the Standing Order was too tight and it wanted to act outside it.
As written, Standing Order No. 27A(1) (a) permits the Secretary of State to certify that less than the information in schedule 3 of the order can be supplied as part of the environmental assessment. It is a question not just of whether there is to be an environmental assessment but of whether it will be complete. That gives the Secretary of State even greater power. Will the Minister say why that power exists? He managed to persuade the Select Committee, which did not go into it in its report.
Paragraph 80 of the Select Committee report states:
The Department of Environment, or other appropriate department, should be invited to report on the environmental statement to the committee on the bill in each House, who should take the statement and the report into account in considering the Bill.
That is a good idea, is it not? The Minister would make a statement about the environmental statement, which is produced by the promoter on some sort of quality machinery into which we cannot go tonight. I think that it is being used for planning and it is a bit controversial in itself.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) catches your eye, Sir Paul, because he is an expert on the matter. It was discussed not long ago in the House. It is a good idea for there to be another statement from the Department of the Environment, but despite the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure in paragraph 80 of its report, which mentions the Minister's power, the suggestion is not included in the proposed Standing Order. Although we like the idea in principle— I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree— we should like the Minister to tell us why the recommendation that there should be a neutral commentary from the Department of the Environment has been excluded from the Standing Order.
We have a not very satisfactory train of events, bearing in mind that green matters and the environment are top of the political agenda— or so we are told. In the new unified Germany, one party has changed the attitude of two or


three of the major parties in four or five years. That can happen in a democratic state. I am glad to say that all three parties have been moved in that direction too. The summation of that move in terms of private Bills is the proposed Standing Order. However, I hope that I have said enough to show that the way in which there has been half-hearted or mistimed consultation in many respects draws a number of question marks.
I have tabled what appears to be a complicated group of amendments. I have done so because one has to have paving and consequential amendments. They amount to two or three pretty simple amendments. Amendment (a) is a paving amendment for the main amendment (d), which seeks to leave out subsection (1)(b) which deals with ministerial power. If that is agreed, amendments (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k) are consequential. They follow amendment (d) for all practical purposes and we can discount them. I want the Minister to consider the merits of the amendments or at least to tell us why he cannot accept them.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, will he accept an alternative amendment? I should like to suggest that we include a provision in line 12 that there should be such additional information as the Secretary of State may require. The information should be that required by schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 and there should be additional information if the Secretary of State wishes. That seems to be common sense. It would give the Minister the discretion to give additional information if he thought that it was necessary.
If the Minister will not accept that proposal, he should surely give at least the information required in schedule 3. I should prefer there to be more information, as proposed in amendment (c). If the Minister does not like that, the information should be nothing less than that required in schedule 3, as proposed in amendment (b). Neither amendment (b) nor amendment (c) has consequential amendments.
The House wants a conclusion to be reached to this matter, as private Bills will come forward in the next Session. The country also wants a conclusion to be reached so that private Bills, in so far as they exist, deal properly with the environment. It would be a great pity if we proceeded too quickly. In view of the irregularities that have occurred and perhaps one or two thoughts that may occur to the Minister as a result of the debate— the purpose of debates is that angles may occur on which we may all agree— the Minister will agree to consider the matter. I hope that he will come back, if not with a perfect set of Standing Orders, at least with some improvements and allow some time for consultations to take place with outside bodies, as they are clearly interested in the matter.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Because of the way in which the package was put to the House before Easter and the fact that certain other measures have been approved, I plead with my hon. Friend to allow this environmental assessment matter to be passed on the basis that the House could always further amend it. It would be a pity not to have any environmental assessment in the Standing Orders while we wait for a perfect one. I plead

with my hon. Friend to allow the matter to proceed. We can then press for a stronger measure to replace it in future.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It highlights the dilemma that I was pointing out. Such dilemmas frequently occur in democratic assemblies. I understand what my hon. Friend means. It would be helpful for the Minister to say that a second bite at the cherry will be available.
I have no wish to prevent environmental assessments from being applied to a private Bill. It would be wrong if they were not. However, it would also be a pity if the rules relating to environmental assessment were not those which environmental bodies that have a statutory responsibility — I have named many of them— and all of us who are concerned with environmental affairs thought were reasonably satisfactory or, still less, that had not had the consideration and discussion that they merit.
I have said enough to show that there have been some procedural hiccups. They could have been mistakes—I am
not by any means trying to bounce anybody. They were probably unfortunate timetable misalignments. If that undertaking could be given it would assist hon. Members.
We now have less than three quarters of an hour left. I warn the Minister that, bearing in mind the choices that will come before the nation in the next few weeks or months, we should not have an argument about the Standing Orders. It would be a great pity if the Standing Orders or their imperfections became a matter of public debate on the hustings. Whether they do so depends on the spirit of the Minister's reply.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be relatively brief and follow the tenor of what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said. It is clearly to be welcomed that environmental assessment should be applied to private legislation. I was a member of the Committee that dealt two and a half years ago with the environmental assessment proposal in relation to legislation in general. One of the matters on which I commented was that the proposals did not apply to private legislation. Some of the most environmentally controversial proposals that have been debated in the House have been in private legislation.
The hon. Member for Newham, South rightly referred to some such proposals. One year we had a fanatical, although not a partisan, debate about the Okehampton bypass, which intruded into Dartmoor. I dissented from the view of our late and lamented friend David Penhaligon, who had campaigned for the bypass to speed the journey of his constituents and of business travellers to and from Cornwall. I understood his view, but I took a different view, as did others who defended the integrity of that part of Dartmoor.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned, controversial proposals were also made to develop Felixstowe dock and harbour. The proposal would have destroyed environmental wetlands, breeding and migration grounds and important ecological areas.
Controversial proposals will continue to be made. As long as the House exempts any section of the legislative process from environmental assessment, the application of the objectives of the European Community, which should


be imposed across all legislative procedures, will be defective because there will be a way through the assessment requirements.
The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill showed that there is often an alternative. It is often open to the Government to introduce a public Bill on a matter which could be the subject of a private Bill, to leave the matter to a private Bill or create a hybrid Bill. If the legislation were a private Bill, it would be exempt from environmental assessment, but if it were a public Bill it would not.
The exemption from environmental assessment requirements was foolish and was not helpful environmentally. We are left with the problem, which the hon. Member for Newham, South rightly sought to highlight by tabling his amendments, that certain overriding powers are left in the hands of the Secretary of State. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his adept footwork. When the matter came before the House in March, I was unable to attend because I was committed to be somewhere else that afternoon. When the Order Paper came through my door, I noticed that the matter was due to be discussed and I hoped that someone would object to the motion. It caught me and other hon. Members unawares. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South for objecting and allowing tonight's debate to take place.
If we are to allow a second exemption to remain, to allow the Secretary of State effectively to direct that certain matters are not to be covered, we shall again allow the application of the EC objective to suffer the fate of being defective. That would be wrong. I understand the view of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it is better to have half an environmental assessment than none at all. None the less, I hope that the House will not leave the matter and fail to deal with it further.
There are questions to be asked about the timetable. It is a pretty rum procedure to announce a consultation period and then to announce before the end of that period what has been decided, let alone without allowing any time to consider the results, whether by publishing them in the House of Commons Library or the Department of the Environment library. I have never believed that the Government were hot on consultation. Indeed, when they proceed with consultation they never seem to take heed of the results. But at least they could have the decency to observe the procedures and make the timetable follow the pattern of consultation, conclusion, publication of results, consideration and then proposition. That would make a courteous change.
I have a few obvious questions which I can put collectively. In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I referred to the topical news from Brussels that Britain is likely to be prosecuted by the European Community for failure to apply the European directive on environmental assessment to some of the more controversial aspects— that is putting it mildly— of the Government's road programme.
The most controversial is the proposed bypass around Winchester. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), who is present, has been involved in the matter of the bypass for the M3. I have been to see the site and it seems to be environmental vandalism of the worst order. It is entirely to be objected to.
I hope that even hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Newham, South, who are not great supporters of the legislative ramifications of the European

Community, will concede that if the European Community is to be the salvation in this case, it is better that it comes to the rescue than that no one does so.
Certainly, residents of Hampshire, the people of Winchester and its surroundings, are looking for any saviour, and the European Community will be a welcome saviour if it saves Twyford Down. Do we not risk the exemption of the Twyford Downs of the future if we accept such a restricted environmental assessment? Can the Minister give us examples of possible exemptions from the list cited by the hon. Member for Newham, South? There is scope for Ministers to decree that certain projects can be exempted, irrespective of their environmental impact. If we are to have an environmental assessment it must be done properly.
Finally— this is an important procedural matter— what guarantee does the House have that sufficient expertise will be available to allow the Committees that scrutinise private Bills to have environmental assessments done properly? Almost since my first months in the House I have argued that all legislation should come here with an environmental assessment in the memorandum. Our procedures are defective in this respect, even though the royal commission on environmental pollution made a similar recommendation in one of its reports some years ago. If the information is to be available to all Members, there must be adequate personnel— a support staff so that the Committee procedures of the House are adequate for the job. We must have the results of proper research into the environmental impact of all proposed legislation, whether primary or secondary.
My fear is that, although the Government are giving a welcome nod in the direction of environmental assessments for private legislation, that is not a sign of a wholesale commitment. The Department of the Environment is aiming more for the veneer of environmental acceptability than for a commitment to that goal. That is sad.
I hope that the Government do not think that, having introduced this measure, they will be able to sail swimmingly into the next election and say, "We have made sure that the practices of the House are environmentally sound. We are doing everything to the highest environmental standards." In fact, the measure follows the de minimis principle: it is the least that could have been done. There are two major holes in it. I am unhappy with it, but it is just acceptable, given that the alternative would be nothing at all.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): The Chairman of Ways and Means has done the House a service by tabling new Standing Order No. 27A, requiring environmental assessment of projects which come before this House for approval in works Bills.
A provision of this nature was proposed by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and has, I believe, the support of both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester South, and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) indicated the Government's support when he was Leader of the House in April 1989. The Standing Order has been drafted in consultation with my Department. We set out the arrangements that we propose


for considering applications for a direction under paragraph (1)(b) in a consultation paper issued on 26 February.
I am tempted to leave the Government's statement at that. We support the Standing Order; it is important to introduce it now so that it can apply to next Session's Bills. But that is a matter for the House to decide. However, the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) draws me to comment in rather more detail, as do the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
I am sorry that the discussion of this serious subject has been somewhat tarnished by ridiculous allegations about procedural issues. Some suggestion that the Department had been at fault was conveyed by the way that the hon. Member for Newham, South went through his list of dates. He made much of the fact that the House authorities tabled the proposed Standing Order on 13 March, well before the end of the consultation period on 23 April. Had he done any homework, and read the consultation paper issued on 26 February, he would have read in the first sentence of the first paragraph:
An amendment to the Parliamentary Standing Orders for private Bill procedures is expected to be tabled shortly".
That might have prepared even the casual reader for the fact that an amendment was about to appear. If he had taken the trouble to go further through the consultation paper he would have found at annex A the proposed new Standing Order No. 27A. Accompanying the letter from the Department of the Environment sent out on 26 February is the full text of the Standing Order that was subsequently tabled by the House authorities on 13 M arch.

Mr. Spearing: I was aware of what was in the appendix, but anybody reading that document would have assumed that the order would be tabled but not debated and agreed until after the end of the consultation period. In a sense, tabling is publication and the document was published. Surely that is a common sense interpretation. Even if it is not, it is the interpretation that many people, including the relevant organisations, assumed to be correct.

Mr. Yeo: I am trying to rebut the absurd allegation that my Department has been trying to stifle debate or spring surprises on the House. The consultation paper plainly stated that the Standing Order would shortly be tabled. In addition, the full text of the proposed Standing Order was included with the consultation paper on 26 February. If hon. Members had wished to object, as the hon. Member for Newham, South objected, to this part of the matter in March, it would have been perfectly easy to ensure that a debate took place. No consultee and no hon. Member could possibly have been taken by surprise by the procedural timetable followed by the Department of the Environment in this matter.
The comments by the hon. Member for Newham, South about where the consultation responses were being kept were also rather absurd and belittled the seriousness of the subject. I am sorry that he finds No. 2 Marsham street too far away. My Department used to deposit all responses to our consultation papers in the Libraries of both Houses. That so overburdened the Libraries that we changed the practice and in the past few years we have been depositing a list of responses and did so in this case.

Proceeding in such a way does not smack of excessive secrecy or of a desire to be obstructive. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a copy of any of the responses I shall be happy to send one to him, and by going to the Library he can find out who responded. The cost of the official paper is not a matter for me, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of costs, item 31 in the brief from the Council for the Protection of Rural England states:
Environmental statements should be available free to all interested parties in a Bill. As an absolute minimum, this should include all those who participated in the EA process and preparation of the ES, and petitioners against the Bill.
Hon. Members are not criticising the Department; at least, I am not. We are appalled at the sheer cost of legitimate objection. Has the Department any constructive views about how those who want to object, not frivolously, can be helped financially? Because of the financial implications, one has to be extremely careful before embarking on an objection.

Mr. Yeo: The issue of the cost of getting copies of papers is more a matter for the House authorities than for the Department of the Environment. An objector will have to weigh up costs, as he would do before objecting to any planning application. If professional advice is taken the cost of that must be borne in mind.
I shall now deal with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South. He would claim that they would strengthen the Standing Order requirements by removing the opportunity for promoters to seek the Secretary of State's direction that an environmental statement is not required.

Mr. Spearing: Or less than the order.

Mr. Yeo: We shall come to that later. The amendments would also mean that the information to be provided might be more restricted than that set out in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. The hon. Gentleman has also proposed that the promoters might be required to provide additional information where both Houses of Parliament so resolve.
In the Government's view, these amendments to the Standing Order are misconceived. The scheme proposed by the Standing Order, and the arrangements on which we have consulted, is that projects approved by Private Bill require environmental assessment on the same basis as projects requiring planning permission— subject only to differences arising essentially from the different nature of the procedures involved. Under the European directive which the 1988 regulations implement, environmental assessment is required for all projects listed in annex I to the directive, and for any projects listed in annex II which are likely to have significant environmental effects. Under clause 14 of the Planning and Compensation Bill, which is before the House, the Secretary of State will be able to add to the classes of project requiring environmental assessment, but preparing an environmental statement is a costly business and should be required of the promoters of projects only where it is really necessary— that is when the project is likely to have significant environmental effects.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Standing Orders are designed to parallel what is happening on applications that occur under planning legislation. If, at some point,


planning legislation is improved, to make environmental assessment stronger, would it not be logical for the House then to amend Standing Orders to take those changes into account?

Mr. Yeo: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, it will be for the House to decide at that time. As the procedures are starting off in parallel, it would seem to be only sensible to argue that they should continue in parallel if changes are made in the requirements of the planning law.
The decision whether a project falls in that category requires the exercise of judgment. That is why the planning regulations provide for a procedure under which the local planning authority considers the need for environmental assessment, with the Secretary of State having the last word in case of dispute. The fact that a project requires approval through the private Bill procedure does not necessarily mean that it is likely to have significant environmental effects, so that environmental assessment would be appropriate. That is why the Standing Order — in accordance with the Joint Committee's recommendation— enables the promoter to go to the Secretary of State to seek a direction that environmental assessment is not required in particular cases.
Basically, that is the argument for rejecting the main amendment. It is interesting that only one response to the consultation paper proposed to remove the Secretary of State's direction-making function. To do so would significantly alter the scheme of the Standing Order in a manner that has not been considered by the promoters or parliamentary agents. Therefore, I recommend that the House should reject the amendments.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to report to the House what the consultees have said in reply to the consultation. We received 35 replies. As has been said, a list of them has been placed in the Library of the House. The Welsh Office carried out a parallel consultation exercise, to which five responses were received. The respondents to these consultations include environmental interests— notably the Council for the Protection of Rural England— public and local authorities, professional organisations and a few promoters, notably British Rail. I shall refer briefly to four main areas of comment.
Some respondents suggest that, because of the strict timetable to which private Bills must adhere, the arrangements for environmental assessment should also follow a formalised timetable. In particular, they contend that the annual June deadline for applications for a Secretary of State direction is too late because if he decides that environmental assessment is required there will not be enough time to enable an adequate environmental statement to be prepared and deposited by 4 December. They therefore suggest that promoters should be required to seek a direction much earlier than June.
The Government view is that in most cases promoters of private legislation will know well in advance whether their proposals are likely to require assessment. Environmental statements take time to prepare and it is good practice for work on them to begin at an early stage in the development process. So if it is clear that environmental assessment is needed, the promoter should simply get on with it. Some respondents have contended that promoters should have to seek a direction in every case, but that would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and time consuming.
Similarly, if it is clear that a project is not likely to have significant effects, there is every reason for the promoter's seeking the Secretary of State's certificate sooner rather than later. If, however, the case is finely balanced, I would hope that the promoter would decide at an early stage that he will provide a statement. I therefore do not expect that cases will often hit the June deadline. Even where they do, and the Secretary of State directs that environmental assessment is not needed, no problem will arise. So the problem will arise only if a direction is refused in a case where the preparation of an adequate environmental statement cannot be completed by 4 December. In such a case, it seems to us that the reasonable effect of the provisions will be to require the promoter to postpone his Bill to the following Session. We shall be preparing guidance which will clarify these points.
This does, of course, raise the question of what is an adequate environmental statement, on which a number of the consultation respondents also commented. They commented that private Bill Committees do not have the necessary expertise to interpret and assess environmental statements, and that such statements should be subject to independent review; some suggest that the Secretary of State should comment on the quality of the statement as part of his report to Parliament on the Bill.
I acknowledge that the idea of an independent review body is attractive, but there are practical difficulties. What would its relationship to Parliament be? In the last resort it must be for the House to decide whether it can approve a project on the basis of the information in front of it. A private Bill Committee has a great ability to require additional information if it is dissatisfied with what the promoter has provided, and petitioners can also obtain information through the cross-examination process. So I am by no means as despondent as are some of the respondents about the quality control that Parliament can exercise.
The Secretary of State's reports to Parliament will seek to be as helpful to the House as possible. He will certainly check that the statement complies with the terms of schedule 3 to the 1988 regulations, and of any direction that he has given, but I do not agree that he should undertake to say whether he considers the environmental implications of a proposal, as set out in the environmental statement, to be acceptable: that must be for Parliament to decide. The Secretary of State must also avoid taking sides on issues on which he may subsequently have to adjudicate in a quasi-judicial capacity— for instance, on a related planning appeal.
I do not dismiss lightly the concerns that have been expressed about the quality of environmental statements. As indicated in last year's environment White Paper, my Department is commissioning research designed to lead to the issue of guidance on good practice in the preparation and evaluation of environmental statements. We are currently considering tenders for the first part of this research, and we shall certainly carefully watch the experience with statements submitted with private Bills.
A third range of comments on the consultation paper urged that there should be wider consultation and involvement of the public in the environmental assessment process. The consultation paper made it clear that, when preparing an environmental statement, promoters should consult specified bodies similar to those that they would be advised to consult under the environmental assessment regulations if they were proceeding by way of a planning


application. That is to enable those bodies to make available any relevant, non-confidential, information that they possess. The bodies concerned would include the Countryside Commission, English Nature, English Heritage, and such other bodies as the Secretary of State may decide in any particular case.
There is no existing provision that could be used to require promoters to consult any particular bodies, nor to require those bodies to make relevant information available to the promoters. Neither is that something which could be required by means of amendments to Standing Orders. We therefore intend to bring forward appropriate legislation at a suitable opportunity. In the meantime, the Department will expect promoters to consult appropriate bodies, including the local planning authority for the area, on a non-statutory basis. We shall also advise promoters to consider consulting relevant non-statutory bodies and the public in the locality of their projects. A number of respondents urged the need for such consultations.
The fourth area of comment concerns the final paragraph of the consultation paper, in which it was proposed that where a private Bill concerns more than one project it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to give a direction that environmental assessment was not required for some of those projects only. The comments that have been made reasonably argue that, where projects are related to each other, they should not be considered separately for environmental assessment purposes. I can assure the House that in such cases we would expect promoters to consider the likely environmental effects of all related projects, but where a Bill covers genuinely disparate projects the need for environmental assessment for each will be considered on its merits.
As I said, the responses overall welcomed the proposals. I am satisfied that they will work as set out in the consultation paper. However, I undertake to keep the operation of the Department's functions under review.
Of course, we can expect the demand for works Bills to decline. Last June, the Government put forward proposals in response to the Joint Committee's report under which the approval of railway and light rail projects, and a wider range of harbour measures, would be considered and approved outside Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced last Friday that the responses to that consultation had been broadly favourable, and that the Government intend to proceed with legislation at the earliest opportunity. The new order-making procedure would include provision for public inquiries and for environmental assessment of schemes likely to have significant environmental effects.
If that legislation is enacted, there will be far fewer proposals which need to come before the House in works Bills and to which the new Standing Order 27A will apply. That does not diminish the importance of the proposal before the House. I strongly commend it to the House, and point out that if we do not agree to the Standing Order tonight— and I believe that this point concerns the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)— there must be a risk that the new arrangements could not be implemented until the 1992–93 Session. So although we disagree with the amendments of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I urge the House to agree to the motion.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We welcome the introduction of environmental assessment into the private Bill procedure, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for making possible tonight's debate. He presented his case thoroughly, and if time had allowed he would have described in more detail ways in which the measure could be improved. His amendments would have improved the Standing Order, but as we want its principles adopted, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not seek to press them.
As to the consultation procedure, the comments of the Council for the Protection of Rural England are particularly apposite. There is a strong case for some form of independent agency to undertake environmental assessments. There is bound to be an element of distrust when the developers themselves are responsible for making an assessment.
As to the role of the Secretary of State, in the case of Teesside power station, the CPRE lodged an objection with the Commission over whether or not the works associated with the building of that power station should have formed part of the overall environmental assessment. The Secretary of State chose not to follow that course, and his decision will be challenged. Certainly it seems to me that the associated works form part of the whole scheme — and in any private Bill, priority should be given to consideration of whether the environmental assessment should cover the whole of the works in question.
I hope that the Government will accept that there is a great deal which could be done to improve the Standing Order. I appreciate the Minister's undertaking to keep an eye on the way that the matter develops and to be prepared to give the House an opportunity to improve environmental assessments further. Therefore, taking the Minister at his word, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to reconsider this subject in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. John Browne: I rise to speak briefly in support of the speeches by the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I also agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the Chairman of Ways and Means has done us a great service by tabling this motion, and I strongly support it.
I understand and share the misgivings of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about exemptions. It worries me, but we must be happy that the order is tabled at all and support it.
It is absolutely right that the same environmental assessment provisions should apply equally to privately finance and to state financed road construction. I noted with interest the reference by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to the timing of the motion as regards a rumour— I do not know how accurate it is. I noticed an article in The Observer about a European Commission proposal to prosecute the United Kingdom Government over their plans for the M3 at Twyford Down. That prosecution would be because the Government had failed to comply with the 1985 EC directive in a specific area.
The M3 at Winchester has been close to my heart for about 14 years. Many people in my constituency are appalled by the Government's proposals. Many more


cannot wait until the road is constructed. They want it finished as soon as possible, because they are totally frustrated for three reasons. The first is the seemingly endless delays amounting to about 20 years of which, according to my calculations on the back of an envelope, the Government rather than protestors have been responsible for 13 years, or 65 per cent. Secondly, they are frustrated by traffic delays because the Government have not constructed the flyover bridge proposed at Hockly traffic lights. Thirdly, they are frustrated by the death tally on the present road, but they note that the Government have made virtually no attempt to upgrade the present bypass to make it safer.
I do not blame the present Secretary of State for Transport, but I believe that the frustration has had a major impact. People have been frustrated so that they will accept anything, regardless of the environmental consequences, just to get the traffic through. The story is that delays on the road are costing industry to the south and west of Winchester £1 million a day. That would pay for a tunnel in less than six months, which puts it into proportion. The cause of the frustration is dubious. I do not believe that Ministers are at fault but they have over many years been given very questionable advice.
The Department of Transport's proposals for the M3 will smash through the most heavily protected piece of environment in our country— the most heavily protected area in the British Isles in terms of statutory protection, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and so on. Statutory bodies such as the CPRE and English Heritage were not even invited to attend one of the inquiries to give evidence. The inquiry was therefore reopened, and there was yet more delay and frustration.
There are sound economic reasons for the 1985 EC directive. It is in Britain's interest to meet that directive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member has a strong constituency interest, but I remind him that we are dealing with an amendment to Standing Orders. It is not appropriate to go into detail on a constituency matter.

Mr. Browne: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are considering the application of the rules to the private construction of roads. Probably the major proposal in the country affects my constituency— the private financing of the tunnel for the M3 at Winchester. That is why I have mentioned the case.
It is important, and it is in Britain's interest, to uphold the EC directive. Most of the other countries in Europe did not have such strict environmental requirements, so our business and commerce were losing.
It is important that the rules are upheld regarding the Standing Order change and the Government's policy on the construction of the proposed route at Winchester. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will urge the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment to take seriously and to review the proposals of the delegation that I led to the Secretary of State for Transport a few weeks ago. Members of Twyford Down Association proposed alternative private financing for the tunnel, which would pay not only for the protection but for the enhancement of the environment in that area and would ensure that the road was built as soon as possible.
I support the speeches of hon. Members and the motion.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a pity that we have not had enough time to debate the motion. I hope that this will be only part of the reform of private business, and that primary legislation will be passed so that environmental issues are dealt with under the planning procedures and not by the House.
The Government's response, issued by the Department of Transport on Friday, suggested that railway, harbour and waterway Bills will be taken out of the procedure. The Minister should consider removing estuary Bills. There are proposals to deal with the Severn, the Mersey, the Wash, and Morecambe bay. Almost any estuary in Britain is the subject of a proposal. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill created controversy, and we should ensure that such Bills are subject to planning procedures rather than the private Bill procedure, otherwise they might take up much parliamentary time in the future.
I should have welcomed stronger environmental requirements in the Standing Order. I hope that we shall improve planning legislation to include better environmental assessments, and that the House ensures that it falls into line by amending the Standing Order.
It is important that the primary legislation is passed. I fear that if there is an October election it will get lost and the House will be unable to reform private Bills, which it urgently needs to do.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but I remind the House that the procedure is a little complicated this evening. If the House wishes to come to a conclusion on the motion, I have to put the Question before 10 o'clock.

Mr. Dalyell: The motion is one of those cases in which the best could be the enemy of the good, and I support it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about estuary Bills.
I want to ask a question that bothers the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others. What is the position on the blank cheque given to the Secretary of State to exempt any private Bill from the environmental assessment requirements, at least without a proviso that the Secretary of State must determine that the project is unlikely to have any significant effects on the environment?
Hon. Members have nightmares about talking out legislation, so to be safer than safe, with that question I shall sit down.

Mr. Yeo: Paragraph 15 of the consultation paper pointed out that it is possible for the Select Committee to call for further environmental evidence, even if the Secretary of State has given a direction that no environmental assessment is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made:—
'27A.—(l) Subject to paragraph (8) below, in the case of a Bill authorising the carrying out of works the nature and extent of which are specified in the Bill on land so specified, there shall be deposited on or before 4th December in the


Private Bill Office and at the Public Departments at which copies of the Bill are required to be deposited under Standing Order 39, either

(a) a copy or copies (as specified by paragraph (2) below) of an environmental statement containing, in relation to the works authorised by the Bill, the information set out in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as "Schedule 3") or such of that information as the Secretary of State may in any particular case direct, or
(b) a copy or copies (as so specified) of a direction by the Secretary of State that no such statement is necessary in relation to the works authorised by the Bill.
(2) The number of copies required to be deposited under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above shall be three in the case of a deposit at the Department of the Environment and one in any other case.
(3) Where any such works authorised by a Bill relates to two or more distinct projects each project may be treated separately for the purposes of paragraph (1) above; and the references in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph to the works authorised by the Bill shall accordingly be construed, where the paragraph applies separately to each project, as references to the works comprised in that project.
(4) Notwithstanding any direction given as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, any environmental statement of which copies are deposited under this Order shall contain the summary (referred to below as "the non-technical summary") required by paragraph (2)(e) and, where material, paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.
(5) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction as mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) above, a copy of the direction shall be deposited with every copy of the environmental statement deposited under this Order; and every copy of a direction so deposited or deposited under paragraph (1) (b) above shall be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State of his reasons for giving the direction.
(6) Copies of every environmental statement deposited under this Order shall be made available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, on and after 4th December, at the offices at which copies of the Bill are required to be made available under Standing Order 4A; and there shall also be made available separately on and after that date at those offices, for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price, copies of the non-technical summary.
(7) The reference to Schedule 3 in this Order is a reference to that Schedule as amended from time to time and includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any regulations which re-enact the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, with or without amendment; and references to particular paragraphs of Schedule 3 shall be construed accordingly.
(8) This Order does not require the deposit of copies of an environmental statement in relation to any works for which planning permission has been granted.'.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not raise it in the previous debate for fear of losing that motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) mentioned the report in The Observer, and I wonder whether it will be possible for a Minister to make a statement in the next few days on whether Britain will be prosecuted. It affects not only Twyford Down, but also the east London river crossing approach road through Oxleas woods in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

European Energy Charter

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4936/91 on a European Energy Charter; and welcomes proposals for a Charter designed to promote an open, liberal and non-discriminatory energy market throughout Europe and to assist in restructuring the energy sectors of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union on a market basis.
I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the proposal for a European energy charter. The Select Committee on European Legislation regarded the communication as being politically important. It was right to do so. Scutiny debates are frequently about the impact of the European Commission proposal on the United Kingdom or on the 12 member states of the Community. This one is different. It covers the whole of Europe— east and west, north and south.
No European energy policy can be forged in the 1990s or beyond if it does not take account of the emerging democracies of eastern Europe or of the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. They have suffered from all the vices of central planning, but none of the virtues of competition and free trade. Getting the energy industries right throughout the east, not least in the Soviet Union, which is so rich in natural resources, could be a catalyst for the transformation of their whole economies and their environments.
I believe that a European energy charter can provide a key to that transformation. It can bring major benefits to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union while also helping the more established European democracies, inside and outside the European Community. It can go further than the internal market by liberalising the energy sector across the whole of Europe.
The United Kingdom market and the United Kingdom have been in the forefront of the development of the internal market in energy and in other areas. The charter give us an important and welcome opportunity to go further in the energy sector, to cover more countries and to establish more liberal arrangements. The United Kingdom is one of the most competitive energy markets in the world. The Government have some of the greatest experience in supervising energy in all its forms, including the supervision of the successful development of the North sea oil and gas sector, the operation of electricity and gas networks with open access and the successful promotion of the efficient use of energy.
British companies have the experience of making successful investments in such an energy market and in providing equipment and services to that market. The charter could give us great opportunities in assisting other countries to liberalise their energy sectors and in creating new opportunities and openings for British companies to invest and export profitably.
Last year at the European Community summit in Dublin, the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, imaginatively proposed an energy Community to cover energy issues throughout the continent of Europe. The United Kingdom supported that proposal. We saw it and still see it as an opportunity to assist the transition of the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to market-based economies, particularly in the vital energy


sector, and as an opportunity for further liberalisation throughout Europe. It reflects our policies on free markets and competition at home in the European Community and we are grateful to the Dutch for their idea and the work that they have done in developing it.
After some informal discussion, the European Commission was asked to produce a draft on a possible charter. In February it did so and tonight we are debating its communication to the Council. It is only a first draft of the charter and potential signatories will need to negotiate and agree a mutually acceptable text. We hope that this process might be complete by the end of the year.
The charter would provide an agreed set of principles relating to energy and energy trade. It is envisaged that a series of protocols negotiated individually, and covering specific sectors and issues, would then be attached to the charter. These intergovernmental agreements would provide the framework and the climate of confidence that would allow and encourage the commercial investment from outside the former eastern bloc that the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union now need to attract. The protocols should also contain the details necessary for freer energy markets within and between the signatories.
We have two main objectives for the charter. First, we wish to assist the Soviet Union and eastern Europe in their transition to multi-based economies. This will help their political reform and will increase their economic efficiency. It will also bring us major benefits, both commercially and in terms of the environment. Secondly, we wish to increase energy liberalisation in the more established democracies, both inside and outside the Community. Freer trade and increased competition would improve both economic and energy efficiency. They would extend consumer choice and enhance security of supply. They would reduce discrimination against our companies when they operate overseas. The charter can provide us with new commercial opportunities by removing some of the existing barriers to trade.
The charter and the associated protocols are likely to cover a number of areas. Oil and gas are likely to be areas of particular interest. The United Kingdom has developed substantial expertise, thanks to our experience in the North sea. We have ensured that it has been explored and developed successfully through sensible licensing and a tax regime that encourages further exploration and investment. We have considerable expertise in the implementation of the necessary safety and environmental regulations, and British companies have shown themselves to be competitive in providing equipment and services in the market that we have established here.

Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend has mentioned tax incentives and the environment. Does he accept that one of the greatest sources of new energy is energy conservation? Does the charter take this into account, particularly with regard to rebates for people, companies and Governments throughout the European Community, as well as in eastern and central Europe, that invest in energy conservation?

Mr. Moynihan: The charter does not take it into account, but there are opportunities for protocols to concentrate on energy efficiency schemes. In due course, it might be necessary for this House to consider, possibly in detail, the impact of such protocols. However, at this stage we are considering the broad principles of the charter. It is

intended that it will refer to energy efficiency measures and their importance, without going into the very important detail to which my hon. Friend has referred.
The charter gives us the opportunity to pass on our expertise to other countries, and to create new opportunities for British companies. In both gas and electricity, we have created competitive markets in production and supply. We have also shown that security of supply can be maintained, even enhanced, by such competition and by providing third-party access to networks. Such access will be necessary elsewhere if energy trade is to expand throughout Europe, and if co-operation and security are to be increased. Here again, we have been in the forefront. Our companies have the necessary expertise and the charter will give them opportunities to operate outside the United Kingdom.
In renewable energy, too, we have managed to move beyond the theoretical and research stages. The non-fossil-fuel obligation has brought forward new and exciting projects on a commercial and competitive basis. This experience will give the companies here that have developed such projects a firm basis to do so elsewhere. The charter is one way of enhancing their opportunities.
These are only some of the ways in which the charter and liberalised energy markets will help us. Even before we consider the serious problems created by central planning in what was the Eastern bloc, there is wide recognition of the fact that the energy sectors of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe face severe difficulties. They are suffering from inefficiency and lack of investment. In some areas, there is concern over safety. Most visible are the very high levels of pollution caused by energy production, distribution and use. Given the fundamental importance of the performance of the energy sector to those economies, their Governments and those wishing to assist them have correctly identified energy as a priority area for future action. But if investment is to come, enterprises in the west need to be reassured about the economic and legal environment in which they will operate.
The USSR is the world's largest producer of oil and gas and possesses vast undeveloped resources. The oil sector is in as serious a decline as any in the Soviet Union. Some commentators have speculated that, unless there is a real improvement in the efficiency of energy production, refining, distribution and consumption, the Soviet Union could become a net importer of oil well before the the end of the decade. It needs to increase its hard currency export earnings. One way of doing so is to improve energy production, which is one of the few sectors where it has a real chance to earn more from a product that it possesses in great quantities and for which there is a large external market. It must also reduce the burden of inefficient, wasteful consumption.
If we can help energy production in the Soviet Union to become more efficient, we, too, will' gain. Increased exports of Soviet oil and gas wil make world energy markets more competitive in the future and will reduce the diversity of potential sources of supply. Future energy costs should be lower and the security of energy supplies should increase so that the Soviet Union becomes less dependent on supplies from a single region.
The decline in the Soviet economy has many causes— technical, economical and political— but the problems are unlikely to be resolved without western investment and technology. Such investment is likely to be made only when western companies have sufficient assurance that the


risks are not excessive. The proposed charter will help to provide a framework for that and create the necessary climate of confidence.
Many eastern European countries faced severe difficulties this winter due to their dependence on imported energy supplies, especially from the Soviet Union and the Gulf. Freer trade may have helped them to diversify their sources of supply and may have given them greater security. We have played our part recently by amending our oil export guidelines, following their requests, to enable North sea oil to be sold to eastern Europe and elsewhere. Freer trade would also help producers by assuring them that they can find markets for their production without being forced to sell it too cheaply. We hope that free trade in energy would be reinforced by the proposed charter, not only in Europe but throughout the world.
The change to market-based pricing for energy is important throughout Europe. Eastern European countries faced difficulties in obtaining Soviet oil deliveries and, from the beginning of this year they were forced to pay world prices for Soviet energy. Before that, energy prices were well below the world rate and its use was wasteful. One of the best spurs for the efficient use of energy is proper pricing so that consumers can decide how to use it most efficiently.
The structure of energy pricing can be as important as the overall level. In parts of the Soviet Union, energy is provided to households for a fixed payment and there is often no facility for metering it. Naturally, there is little or no incentive for individuals to save energy or to use energy-saving measures such as thermostats. If a room is too hot, the easiest solution is to open a window. In the absence of individual heating controls, that may be the only solution. This may seem tangential to our debate, but it illustrates the significance of proper energy pricing, whether to individual homes or to industry.
The inefficient use of energy in industry is probably more significant. Under a centrally planned economy, heavy users of energy in industry have had little incentive to use energy sensibly. But if energy can be improved, some of the horrific pollution in the east can be avoided. Therefore, the charter seeks greater emphasis on market-based pricing for energy.
Improvements in the energy sector require investment. Capital and expertise are required to overhaul ailing energy economies in the east, but they cannot be found from internal sources alone. Western Governments have provided funds to help economic restructuring and development, including in the energy sector. However, that will not be sufficient. Government bureaucracies are least capable when attempting to discover or produce oil, gas or coal. Most energy is consumed by industry, commerce and individuals.
Ultimately, it will be companies and enterprises and their investment that will provide the capital and skills for new, more efficient, safer and less-polluting energy equipment, both for production and use. That, too, will create new opportunities for British companies. The charter will need to emphasise the vital role of the commercial sector, both in providing investment and taking the necessary action to improve efficiency.
The fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident underlines the fact that the safety issue can cross national borders. The same is true of the environmental impact of the energy sector. All forms of energy production affect the environment in one way or another, and a large number of international initiatives have been undertaken to reduce some of the effects. The Soviet Union and the eastern European countries are parties to a number of those.
The proposed charter should not try to replace or duplicate such arrangements, but, by stimulating investement in modern technology at all stages of the fuel cycle, the charter can assist and make a major contribution to environmental improvement. Some people in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe may be suspicious of the charter, fearing that it could be an attempt by the west to take control of their energy resources, but that is not our aim. Britain has as much interest as anyone in maintaining the principle of national sovereignty over natural resources.
Principles should be stated in the charter. Individual countries should have the right to determine how fast, and in what manner, their own resources are developed. Once the Government have decided that, the opportunity to invest in such development should be open and non-discriminatory. Non-discrimination is another principle which we shall seek in the charter. Companies should be free to invest and provide equipment and services, regardless of which country they originally came from.
Given the expertise and experience in the United Kingdom, the charter will create new opportunities for British companies and increase competition and efficiency wherever it is applied. There is no doubt that the details will need to be negotiated, with some countries looking for joint ventures with local enterprises, while others are prepared to accept 100 per cent. subsidiaries established under local regulations. Whatever the details, the energy sector, both east and west, cannot afford artificial barriers to international co-operation, trade and the transfer of investment and technology.
The problems of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are an important part of the reason why we support the charter, but not the whole reason. Some of the problems that I have identified also apply, to a lesser extent, elsewhere in Europe. We, too, will benefit by showing that our energy sectors operate in a sensible, open and liberal framework. The charter proposal is an important idea, designed both to assist transition in the east in the energy sector and to liberalise energy in the rest of Europe. It will create new opportunities for those moving away from central planning and towards the market. It will also create new opportunities for British companies operating in any part of Europe.
One of the charter's major objectives is to help regenerate the economies of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe through market principles by concentrating on a sector where there is already a substantial international market and where they have scope to make substantial foreign exchange benefits by increasing exports or reducing imports. Another objective is to provide the political security necessary to attract our companies to invest in those countries. The principles are those of an open, liberal and competitive market, and follow the principles that guide our own energy policy. The fruits of success can be enormous in terms of economic prosperity, political stability and environmental improvements.
The United Kingdom has much to offer the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, based on our success in the oil, gas, electricity, nuclear, new and renewable energy and energy efficiency spheres. The charter will create new opportunities for our companies, with their experience in all those sectors. We have been in the forefront of opening up energy markets in the European Community. If successful, the charter will enable us to extend its objectives throughout Europe and beyond. Therefore, I commend the motion and the charter to the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We have listened to the Minister for 17 minutes. He will not be surprised that my reading of the charter and my welcome for it are somewhat different from his. He mentioned the words" liberal" or "liberalisation" 14 times, the same number of times as the Secretary of State for Health in his notorious broadcast about the alleged big lie used in the Monmouth by-election. I wondered whether the Minister would carry on in the same vein by coming out with a phrase about "opt-out power stations" not being connected to the national grid.
It is fair to say that anybody reading the document objectively would ask whether it would solve the energy problems of Europe and, if so, which parts of it would make the biggest contribution. I want to return to other themes that have been hitting the headlines in the past few weeks. It is fair to say that politics, as we have learnt over the past few days, is a dirty game. I always remember Montgomery being asked on television in 1956 why he had not followed the well-trodden path of Eisenhower, who had become President of the United States, and gone into politics. He replied that war was a very dirty game, but when compared to politics— and left us to draw our own conclusions. When one compares war or politics to energy, one can say that energy is the dirtiest game of all. By that, I simply mean environmental pollution which is a side-effect of almost all forms of energy.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) asked the Minister whether energy efficiency played a part in the energy charter and the Minister said that it did not really, but that such proposals would be in the protocols. I differ from the Minister in my reading of the document. Energy efficiency is underplayed a bit, but it is included extensively. Point 3 refers to
optimum use of energy and environmental protection, which will imply— the development of new and renewable energy sources;— greater energy savings;— measures to combat pollution.
One cannot sum up the problems of energy, as seen by the man or woman in the street, more neatly than that.

Mr. Moynihan: In fairness, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) intervened on a specific group of measures on energy efficiency. The charter overall pays important respects to energy efficiency. Which specific measures are implemented will be matters for negotiation in the protocol. That was the point that I made to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister must not get over-excited about the point. I agree with him to the extent that I believe that energy efficiency should play a larger part in the charter. The Minister described what he thought the charter contained: 99 per cent. opening up of, or

liberalisation of, or freeing up of— to use the Minister's buzz words— energy markets on a non-discriminatory, transparent and non-national basis compared with 1 per cent. of other problem-solving measures. That description is wide of the mark. However, I should like there to be even more reference to energy and to the environmental side effects simply because that is what the population of Europe will expect of the charter.
If we asked the population of Europe what the No. 1 problem was, they would not say that it was the inability of Austrian investors to get shares in the Portuguese electricity industry without an assurance about being able to have their dividends remitted in hard currencies. People would say that that was rubbish and had nothing to do with the matter. They would say that they wanted to be reasonably sure that there was not a second Chernobyl, ready to pop off at any minute, hiding in eastern Europe or that brown coal or lignite production would not cause acidification and kill forests in Germany, Scotland or Wales when the east wind blew. Such environmental problems are of concern, combined with the possibility of far higher electricity prices if we introduce a carbon tax. Such a tax may prevent Bangladesh again being completely flooded as the oceans rise— if global warming is a reality rather than just a scientific theory, as it is now. Those are the big energy talking points. The European energy charter points towards them, but it should point towards them with a little more emphasis.
The Minister's premature triumphalism about the United Kingdom recipe for the development of energy is completely misplaced. Neither in Britain nor elsewhere in Europe is there a real solution to the problem of what energy gives us in a combination of naturally competitive activities such as oil refineries and natural monopolies such as local distribution networks or long-distance transmission networks. What do we do with natural monopolies? Do we keep, say, local wire networks under public control or municipal control, or do we pass the monopolies over to the private sector— for example, the oil refining industry or electricity generating companies, which we could call naturally competitive? To achieve maximum energy efficiency gains, we could say that they should be integrated with the natural monopolies on the wires side of the business. Those are the big questions for people in the energy industry in the next 10 years.
The charter does not examine those questions in as much detail as it should. The Minister's interpretation does not examine them at all. Those are big issues, given the natural tendency of the treaty of Rome or a Euratom-based body such as the European Commission to look at Europe simply as a device for the removal of trade barriers. The treaty of Rome also provides for the 12 countries of the European Community to come together on an ad hoc basis— this matter is outside the treaty of Rome, although we can see it colouring the treaty— with the major leap into the east, which we must welcome. As the Minister rightly said, the pollution problems of energy production recognise no national boundaries and no European Community boundaries. In that leap to the east, can the 12 countries of Europe plus the others in the east come together constructively to solve the real problems of the future of energy production?
I am disappointed that the document does not mention global warming. China and India will need to be included. In the document there is the slightest tangential reference to third world countries. That is important. There is a brief


reference to clean coal technology. If we manage to perfect clean coal technology and if clean coal technology is one solution to the problem of global warming through, for example, the pressurised fluidised bed combustion system, the passing of that new clean coal technology to China and India may be the biggest single contribution to the solution of the global warming problem over the next 25 years. The combined technological and financial resources of the 12 countries of the Community can contribute to solving the planet's No. 1 environmental problem. That is an important item. The relationship with the third world is mentioned tangentially. It is a big issue. It is played down a little, and we want it to be played up again when the document is transformed into protocols.
Another problem that needs a higher profile is energy efficiency. The document states that we need some organisation to disseminate technology, new techniques and new methods of promoting energy efficiency. We are on all fours on that point. If bright ideas are evolved in other countries, we want them to be transmitted here. The tone of the Minister's remark was somewhat Kiplingesque. It assumed that the flow of new ideas and technology was almost by right from this country to other countries and was not two way. That smacks of a British-centred view of the world. For instance, we would hope for an inward flow of technology from other sources in respect of more energy-efficient use of combined heat and power, coal generation and the incineration of municipal refuse. In the past months, German municipal electricity utilities, in combination with their linked parent generating companies, have approved substantial new CHP schemes in certain cities in Germany. We are terribly slow. Apart from the construction of the Slough power station, we have no projects in combined heat and power. We would welcome some inward flow of technology.
Municipal refuse incineration for electricity generating purposes is another area where we are slow to develop. A municipal incineration plant has been approved in Munich. We would like to think that that will prove that such plants can succeed, even in an environmentally fussy country such as Germany. If so, such plants will become acceptable in Britain. That is a matter in which we expect an inward flow of technology.
We are pleased that the new Franco-British consortium of one of the subsidiaries of GEC and its French partner Alsthom is combining all its resources to design and manufacture turbine generators. The consortium intends to invest in Grimethorpe. That is one of the sadly neglected areas of clean coal technology which came close to marketabilty but has been left to wither. Fortunately, the Anglo-French consortium has announced that it will put a couple of million pounds towards the project.
We hope that if it is proved that the Grimethorpe project can operate at a fully marketable size the technology will flow outwards from Britain to China, India, the Soviet Union, and so on. However, the flow of technology is not all one way. The Minister made a big mistake in presenting it as such and implying that we were taking on the white man's burden and assisting the poor old Soviet Union to sort out its energy problems, vast as those problems are. There may well be things that we could learn from other countries and it pays occasionally to be

a little modest so that we draw from both sides as well as grasp the commercial opportunities that we hope will come from developments such as those at Grimethorpe.
The charter is not all about liberalisation. It is about energy efficiency and transfer of technology both ways. It is not all about teaching the poor, state-controlled, centrally planned economies how to gain the benefits of liberalisation. There are real energy problems. Privatisation is not the sole policy or the sole aim of policy when dealing with issues such as acid rain and seeking to introduce combined heat and power to double fuel efficiency from the typical mid to high 30 per cent. to the 70 per cent. fuel efficiency conversion ratios that we should look for by the beginning of the new millennium, in nine years.
Clean coal, more suitable uses for municipal refuse than disposal in landfill sites and other matters are also mentioned in the charter. However, the charter is biased towards liberalisation. It does not treat energy efficiency as a sufficiently high priority. We do not agree with the Minister's interpretation that the charter is 99 per cent. about liberalisation. We see it as a proper subject involving walking the tightrope of the obsession of the treaty of Rome and removing trade barriers. The treaty of Rome is all about establishing level playing fields for competition. That is fair enough in activities where competition is the natural way of allocating resources in the best possible way. In other activities there are natural monopolies and resource efficiency is paramount. Energy is inherently a dirty form of economic activity. The profile of energy efficiency and other issues must be raised in the charter. From the Minister's speech it seems that there is not much chance that that will be done.

Mr. Simon Hughes: For many years of my life, I have made a non-self-interested case for fair votes and proportional representation. Tonight I have been persuaded to make a much more self-interested case. Under a fair system, my party would have its due 150 Members, and one person could have spoken in the London Underground debate at 7 o'clock, another person would have spoken in the environmental assessment debate, and someone else would have spoken on the European energy charter. Under the present regime, one person has to speak in all three debates. I apologise to the House. I am equally sad because it is getting near to bed time, and well past supper time, and I have not yet had a chance to eat. As a result, I shall have to miss the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), but I may say in advance that I imagine I shall support what she has to say about safety on London buses.
The proposal by the Dutch Government some months ago for a Europe-wide energy charter begins the second phase of the development of Europe from the same starting point as that with which the post-war development of Europe began. The founding fathers of the European Community decided that the best building block on which to construct a Community was a joint energy policy.
The mechanism used was the European Coal and Steel Community. They believed that pooling the resources of coal and steel would prevent warfare. They placed under one organisation's control the two prerequisites for arms


and defence manufacture. They saw a common coal and steel policy, for France and Germany particularly, as the way to peace. Eventually, of course, those two countries were joined by four and eventually by 10 others. Thus, it is interesting that this, the proposed first pan-European energy policy, is being used as the first building block for what might eventually be a Community stretching throughout the countries of Europe, with responsibility for many matters apart from energy.
I am an ardent supporter of the European Community. In general, I support its economic propositions, although certain difficulties are associated with them. I welcome this debate because it allows us, in a multi-party fashion, to assist the Government's response to the proposals for an energy charter. We should support the idea of such a charter; but I, like the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), take the view that some of the ideas on which it is based go off in the wrong direction.
Title 1 of the objectives listed on page 9— after the inevitable preamble— reads as follows:
With a view to improving security of supply on the most satisfactory economic basis and developing energy activities with due regard for the environment, the signatories agree to promote the construction of a large European energy market.
I would not agree with that as a first objective. It is right to accept that there is a large European energy market, but not as a first objective. That should concern securing the best possible energy use by reducing and sharing energy, not just by developing more sources of supply.
My three guiding principles would be somewhat different. The Foundation of a sustainable European energy charter should begin with the careful conservation of all the energy resources of the continent. We should reduce total consumption and change the balance of our primary sources of supply. Secondly, we should use the proposed market to provide the most efficient allocation mechanism as between Community countries. Thirdly, we must develop renewable resources more.
Very recently, I learned through a parliamentary answer that Britain's energy consumption rose by 0· 7 per cent. last year over the year before, while GDP fell by 0· 5 per cent. That, I believe, is the first time that consumption has ever risen while GDP has fallen, and that statistic mirrors the steady decline of the United Kingdom's energy ratio. One of the criticisms levelled by many at the Government is that we do not have a proper national energy strategy. It is wonderful to have a European energy charter, but it would be quite a good idea to have a national energy strategy as well.
The draft charter for Europe allows us to review our energy policy at home. I hope that one of the consequences will be a review of our energy requirements, our supply capacity and our scope for reducing energy consumption. Perhaps we can carry out such a review in the context of the continent of Europe as a whole. Energy saving requires not just targets but tax incentives, grants and penalties that will inhibit high-energy-consuming practices. We need local and national levels of energy consumption that will lead to a reduction. That can be done by setting maximum targets and trying to stay below them.
All that must be done on the level playing field that we hear so much about, and we must make sure that there are no artificial barriers. A European initiative on cross-boundary funding of conservation projects could emerge

from the charter and a review. We could pool our cash resources and our expertise and ensure fair treatment in the search for conservation.
Common labelling of household goods would ensure that people recognised energy-efficient white goods. The white goods consumer revolution would become a green goods revolution. People would reduce their use of energy-demanding washing machines and dishwashers, and would have a firm base on which to choose the best sort of machinery to have in the home.
We could make sure that Britain and the continent made more use of energy-efficient light bulbs and a whole range of other consumer products. The European experience can educate Britain and the whole of Europe. I endorse the Minister's view about the potential of eastern Europe for making a contribution to saving energy. We need a common strategy to deal with the adverse environmental consequences.
On a visit to Cracow in southern Poland, I saw the result on that beautiful mediaeval city of pollution from the nearby smelting works. Some countries in eastern Europe have used energy in an unsound way and have caused enormous pollution. A common environmental objective could benefit eastern Europe.
Conservation strategy has enormous potential for creating jobs. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has given the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy properly calculated projections which show that 155,000 jobs could be created in Britain in energy conservation technology and activity. Parliamentary answers show that, over the next decade, we have a potential market of about £50 billion-worth of energy efficiency technology. Across Europe, about £250 billion is likely to be spent on energy abatement technology. There are massive opportunities for job creation and energy reduction. Energy conservation should be central to the charter.
Next, let us be bold about using the market and adopt the proposal for Community levels for emission ceilings and licences. Targets could be set in Europe and pilot programmes started for international initiatives. Licences could be issued to producer countries to keep within the targets. That is one way to lessen the greenhouse effect.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West accepted, and I have heard Ministers say that they accept, that we must be realistic about energy charges. The proposal in the Community for a carbon or energy tax is gathering momentum, and I and my colleages support it. We grossly underpay for the energy that we consume. My party believes that we should pay much more for the non-renewable sources of energy that we, both in this country and across our continent, consume every day. It would be a good idea to have that strategy built into a European energy charter. By all means let us have the real market, but we should use it to make sure that the real costs of energy are paid for by the citizens of this wealthy part of the world.
Thirdly, we must also develop renewables, and state that much more authoritatively as an objective within the charter. I am surprised that this is so much ignored in the charter, because the Dutch are good about renewable energy—windmills are the symbol of the Netherlands, and are practical ways to produce energy as well. Last year, only 0· 01 per cent. of Government expenditure went on developing renewable energy sources. Germany, Greece, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland spent double that.
The charter gives us an opportunity to rectify the oversights of recent years in terms of the fossil fuel levy. I know that the Government are thinking about it. At Energy questions last week, I heard the replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about what is happening in Scotland. We could review the lifetime of the fossil fuel levy of eight years. We could change the proposal— the Government's proposal— put it in the context of Europe, and make sure that we have a far better ratio for payback, to enhance renewable energy, both here and in Europe.
This take-note debate is an opportunity for the Government to take advice, to go back and negotiate. I hope that they will negotiate for a tough energy charter, not just one that acknowledges that environmental policy depends on good energy policy, but one that does much more to ensure that the energy charter is a European environmental charter as well.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was right— this is an opportunity for Ministers to listen to the views put forward by hon. Members, to take note of them and to use them in discussions on the development of the charter. The hon. Member misinterpreted the emphasis that I placed on the protection of the environment, which is one of the major points that has been made this evening. I can give him the firm undertaking that environmental considerations will be given full weight in the charter. That is vital, and I touched on some of the ways that the environment will be affected by the charter. Modernisation of gas transmission and distribution networks would, for example, reduce the levels of leaks of methane, which is not only dangerous locally but is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before.
The building in eastern Europe of new power stations with modern equipment can reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, which result from the burning of lignite, or brown coal. This will reduce the impact of acid rain locally and regionally. Greater efficiency in the conversion and use of all forms of energy will help to stabilise carbon dioxide production, which affects the global environment. All these features can benefit from an effective charter and it is vital that emphasis is rightly placed, and continues to be placed by those working on the charter, on the environment, energy efficiency and safety improvements in the energy sector.
I take the points made both by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I understand that their comments were not a criticism of the Government's position, but were reflections on what should be given greater priority in the drafting and the objectives of the title, which was read out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. As he rightly pointed out, the first of the three major objectives is primarily concerned with the free market in energy and the expansion of trade in energy. I concentrated in some detail — I hope to the benefit of the House— on how we interpreted that.
The second of the objectives is co-operation and co-ordination in energy. That has considerable impact on

the technical aspects and economic data. I agree that this is not all one way. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey gave that impression. We can benefit a great deal from the charter, and from the expertise of, and technological developments in, other countries, not least on renewables.
I have been one of the greatest advocates of the non-fossil fuel obligation and have been much involved in pushing it forward. I attach the greatest importance to renewable sources of energy in terms of both diversity and security of supply. The environmental impact of renewable sources of energy is one of my major priorities.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West talked about incineration and the effect of the German projects. With my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens)— as always, my hon. Friend is sitting quietly behind me—I shall visit Edmonton to see the incinerator projects there, which have important benefits for north London. Only recently I went to Brent to see the Chalk Hill project. The waste from the estate is used to generate heat. The entire heating system is fuelled by the waste that is generated by the residents. We must examine more projects of that sort. Exchange of information within the charter will present us with an opportunity to move forward.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister envisage acceptance of a carbon tax? Does he envisage that within the United Kingdom we shall gradually extend the nuclear levy, which is in effect a carbon tax, so that there is an extension of municipal waste incineration and so forth? If so, does he agree with the policy of the Liberal Democrats, which we do not?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's position on a carbon tax. I do not agree with the argument that it should be extended across the board. I recognise that if the United Kingdom is to meet the high standards that are required for the environment—standards are becoming increasingly high—while taking account of production, we must take the opportunities that the charter presents for setting high environmental standards, which will be reflected in the charges that are passed on to the consumer. That is an essential prerequisite to achieving higher environmental standards throughout Europe. Any country that is a signatory to the charter will not be prevented from setting higher standards. I hope that we shall achieve—this is one of the objectives set out in one of the protocols—high environmental standards. As I have said, those standards will have to be paid for, and the cost will have to be passed on to the consumer, who demands them and recognises their importance if we are to secure an enhanced environmental quality of life.
I take on board the importance that has been attached to conservation and to renewables. We shall consider these matters carefully when presenting our case for further detailed discussion.
Finally, I recognise the importance that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has attached to safety improvements, clean coal technology, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, which are covered by the third part of the title. I accept that the priority is not as high as hon. Members would like, and we shall bear that


much in mind when it comes to moving forward with what I believe is a welcome and important initiative in the energy sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4936/91 on a European Energy Charter:, and welcomes proposals for a Charter designed to promote an open, liberal and non-discriminatory energy market throughout Europe and to assist in restructuring the energy sectors of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union on a market basis.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 3 to 7 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

LICENCES AND LICENSING

That the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the Financial Services act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1104), dated 30th April 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.

That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.

EMPLOYMENT CODES OF PRACTICE

That the draft Employment Codes of Practice (Revocation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April be approved. —[Mr. Moynihan.]

Question agreed to.

European Community Documents

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 8 and 9 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).

UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8597/90 + COR 1 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 26th February on unfair terms in consumer contracts; and endorses the Government's view that the measure needs to address identified problems with consumer contracts and to strike a fair balance between the interests of consumers and those of traders.

MILK QUOTAS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5491/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 10th May on the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 in respect of allocation of milk quotas; and supports the Government's intention to seek an agreement which meets the requirements of the European Court's judgments on the treatment to be accorded for quota purposes to former participants in certain Community dairying cessation schemes and ensures that the effectiveness of milk quotas in limiting Community expenditure on market support in the dairy sector is maintained—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Question agreed to.

London Buses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Ms. Kate Hoey: I am pleased to have the opportunity in a short debate to raise some important issues about buses in London. It is interesting that, all over the world, in almost any country, one of the most regularly used symbols of London is the London bus. Yet in this country the bus is sometimes considered the poor relation in public transport. There is no doubt that it has suffered from a lack of status in the eyes of many prospective users.
It is important to remind ourselves of the benefits that the bus brings to public transport in a major city such as London. Buses are extremely efficient users of road space. In peak periods, they carry in central London nearly one third of road passengers but account for only 1 per cent. of road vehicles. They carry 1 per cent. of road users in the whole of London on only 0·2 per cent. of vehicles. Nevertheless, buses receive less attention than almost any other form of transport. Certainly they have not been the subject of many debates in the House.
Because bus services do not require major new infrastructure, they are seldom the subject of lead news items. London buses carry 4 million passengers a day—about the same as Network South East and London Underground combined. They make far more efficient use of available road space than do private cars, and consume significantly less energy per passenger mile.
Encouraging greater use of existing capacity within the existing bus network, and enhancing it where required, would make it possible, at relatively low cost, to reduce pollution, lower the number of accidents, and make more road space available for other potential users. In the case of journeys that cannot be made by foot or by bicycle, the bus is the environmentally friendly option.
In the short term, no other policy is likely to bring such immediate and cost-effective results in increasing the total capacity of London's public transport system. The London Regional Passenger Committee policy document, "About Turn", comments that London's bus network is "a grossly under-utilised asset"— and that is borne out by the facts.
At present, there are 300,000 empty seats on London buses each rush-hour morning. One bus is the equivalent of 70 cars. If only we could entice those drivers off the road and on to those vacant seats, significant space would be created for the essential vehicles that are so necessary for London's economic well-being.
There are many reasons why the public are discouraged from using buses. I will not repeat the arguments relating to reliability or to the high fares—although we are continually reminded that London's public transport system has the highest fares in Europe. Instead, I will concentrate on the safety and security of both passengers and staff.
A few week ago, London Buses announced that there were almost 1,000 assaults on bus staff last year, and acknowledged that the figure has been climbing steadily for three years, with a 20 per cent. rise in the past two years. There were 524 attacks on driver-operators, 284 on conductors, 49 on drivers, 105 on officials, and four on other personnel.
The consequence of those attacks— apart from the obvious trauma suffered by the victims— has been a warning by some operators that they may have to withdraw evening services on certain routes. It is surely time that operators installed video cameras on all their vehicles. The effect will not be immediate, but once footage is obtained of assaults and acts of vandalism, it will be easier to achieve successful prosecutions. By co-operating with the media, the operators will be able to publicise mindless crimes and the subsequent successful convictions.
We do not know the number of assaults on passengers, or the number of times that buses have to stop because of an incident between passengers, because no separate statistics on them are kept— they are simply merged with the other London crime figures. I ask the Minister to find a way of separating those statistics, because the information available is not good enough.
What would help to make travellers more secure? At this stage, I pay tribute to Lambeth public transport group, and particularly to John Stewart and George Wright, who produced an extremely good document entitled "Caught Out: the Value of Video Cameras on Buses"— a copy of which the Minister, if he is well prepared, will have seen. Many of my remarks stem from the work done by John Stewart and George Wright.
When considering the need for video cameras, it is important to show where their use has been successful. West Midlands Travel began a campaign against crime on its buses way back in 1987. The vandalism bill at the time was £2·3 million per annum. It is currently £250,000 per year and continues to decline. That has been achieved directly as a result of the installation of video cameras on almost all of its buses, and of increased co-operation with the police and local magistrates. As a result the incidence of graffiti and slashed seats has been reduced by more than three quarters. The filmed evidence of culprits allows West Midlands Travel to take steps to recover the cost of repairing the damage or to prosecute. If necessary, evidence from video cameras can also be used to secure compensation. As prosecutions have increased, so the crimes have declined.
Video cameras cost a great deal of money. There have been varying estimates of how much it would cost per vehicle, and there is no doubt that installation throughout an entire fleet, as would be the case in London, is not cheap. However, it will save money in the longer term. As the West Midlands Travel managing director, Don Colston said:
We have put millions in, but much of it has been self-financing.
More importantly, West Midlands Travel told the Lambeth public transport group:
There is no doubt that our staff and customers appreciate the added security that the cameras provide. They have increased passenger confidence in the travelling environment on our buses.
Evidence shows that what has happened in the west midlands could happen in London, with the same effect. The installation of video cameras not only saves money in the long term: it also makes the buses a safer and more attractive mode of travel, which is good for everybody.
The principal operator in London is London Buses, which has a fleet of just over 5,000 vehicles. It has estimated that it would cost £20 million to fit video cameras to all its buses. The Lambeth public transport group and other evidence shows that it could be done for

.
much less. London Buses has fitted some cameras to its vehicles, but it has said that, no matter how desirable, it does not have enough money to equip the entire fleet.
The cost-benefit analysis, even under my calculations, shows that it would actually save money in the long term. In 1989, London Buses spent £2 million repairing buses which had been vandalised or covered in graffiti. That is a very large sum of money, but the hidden cost increased that amount further. The £2 million bill does not take into account the loss of revenue when buses are taken out of service for cleaning or repair. Nor does it include the substantial loss of revenue and the way in which passengers are profoundly affected when crews take their buses off the road to express sympathy after a colleague is assaulted.
Video cameras could also be used as effective revenue protection, ensuring that people have paid their fares and stopping fare evasion, and could assist in the sort of survey work on which. London Buses and London Transport spend enormous sums of money every now and again to try to work out travel information. The video camera could be monitoring passengers who board, gathering useful information on travel patterns— how many people pay cash and who pays cash, for example. It would end up doing a job that we pay consultants large amounts of money to do.
There are no figures to show how many people do not use the bus because they feel that it is unsafe. However, there is no doubt— it is widely acknowledged— that a substantial number of people, especially women and the elderly, feel isolated and insecure when they are upstairs on a one-person operated bus. My Mini was recently stolen and for about five or six weeks I regularly used London buses. I felt very insecure sitting on the top of a bus going home from this place, especially at this hour of night. Passengers find graffiti and torn bus seats threatening. That is a further reason why many women choose not to use the bus.
The deterrent effect of video cameras would reduce attacks. It would make working on buses more attractive and might help to ease the difficulties of recruiting staff. In addition, it would reduce the number of days that bus crews take off work as a result of assaults.
Many other aspects of London buses could be improved. The Department of Transport's consultative document, "A Bus Strategy for London", accepts almost everything that bus users say about the bus. It says that buses are used most by people who do not have access to cars, by people on low incomes, more by women than by men and more by 11 to 19-year-olds and people over 60. For many of those people, there is no alternative, yet the document says that the future of buses depends on their ability to win and retain passengers in competition with other transport options.
The only solution offered by the Government is the deregulation of buses in London. I do not want to go into the details of that argument, as I do not have time, but I hope that the Minister will realise that deregulation is not the way to improve bus services in London. It would lead to more congestion and poorer reliability, but would not lead to more people using buses.
This year alone, London Buses has been asked by London Transport to lose £ 3 million Londonwide— not because the buses are not being used but because that is its share of the amount that London Transport must lose. That has led to fewer services in the evenings, which has

affected people who have no alternative but to use the bus, such as shift workers and people who must travel to work early in the morning. In my area, the No. 159 has been cut drastically.
I should like the Government to take transport in London, especially buses, much more seriously. They have said what needs to be done and how essential the bus is but their only solution is deregulation. Several measures would make people feel that the bus is a better option. We must modernise its image. Many people regard buses as old-fashioned, smoky and dirty, even though smoking is not allowed. It need not be so, and London Buses has new vehicles.
Seats must be made more comfortable, good colour coding must be introduced, and the number on the front of a bus must be the same as the number on the back, so that people are not confused. However, operators would need access to capital to provide vehicles to match that image and to entice the customer. We could lower fares, increase reliability, speed up bus-priority measures and restore some conductors. I am not saying that every bus should have a conductor, but a case can be made for the wholesale return of bus conductors on certain routes.
Some of the organisations most interested in public transport have got together and called this the "Year of the Bus". The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been promoting the bus. The Bus and Coach Council has launched its "Buses Mean Business" campaign. The Association of London Authorities has produced a report entitled "Room at the Top". The London Boroughs Association has produced "Scope for Bus Priorities in London" and has argued for more frequent services.
Much more could be done, with some effort and imagination. Only a properly funded public transport service in London can get London moving. If we want to establish such a service quickly, we should get our buses moving. In order to attract people back to the buses and to make them feel safe, we should come up with a little additional money. We should put video cameras on all our buses, which would make people feel safer and would save money in the long run.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) for raising the matter of public transport safety, which is of great importance to the Government. I agree with much of the hon. Lady's speech, but we have some differences on deregulation. She is aware that the Government are consulting on that matter. We have had a number of responses and we are now considering the likely course of progress. It would be inappropriate to refer to the matter further.
In those areas where bus deregulation has occurred, however, it has led to new customer services. In some areas buses are now serving districts that previously had no bus service. I accept, however, that London is in a different category from the other examples of deregulation, but I cannot allow the hon. Lady to dismiss the argument for deregulation.
Public transport safety is of great importance. The hon. Lady is right about the vast numbers of people who rely on public transport as their means of getting to and from work, particularly in the capital. The hon. Lady cited


impressive figures on passengers. Whether one's journey is for work or leisure, a visit to friends or relations, or whether one is a resident or a visitor, public transport is the safe way to travel in and around London. Last week, Denis Tunnicliffe, the managing director of London Underground, said:
"You are safer on the Tube than you are in your kitchen." It is important that we take every opportunity to convince people just how safe public transport is and how important it is to the capital.
Safety on London Transport is a top priority. In the wake of the Fennell report into the 1987 fire at King's Cross, LT implemented a major programme of expenditure and training to enhance safety matters that affect passengers, members of the public and staff.
London Transport has a comprehensive set of safety objectives that have been set by its board and endorsed by the Government. The board's safety audit committee monitors the safety of operations across all the subsidiary companies.
In road safety terms, bus travel scores high. In 1989 passenger and driver casualties accounted for less than 4 per cent. of casualties to all vehicle users while accounting for about 7 per cent. of passenger kilometres. When buses are involved in an accident, passengers and drivers also fare better in comparison to the occupants of other vehicles. Perhaps that is not something which we should like to shout about, but it is a fact.
London Buses recently demonstrated a new safety device that it intends to fit to the centre doors of nearly 3,000 buses. The new device will make the doors reopen automatically if they meet an obstruction. It is intended to prevent the small number of accidents that have occurred when passengers, mainly elderly, have been caught in the doors. I am aware that some people still prefer to use the old Routemaster buses with their open platform entry, but buses with doors are much safer. The chances of a passenger having a serious accident getting on or off a bus are roughly 11 times greater on an open-platform bus. The new safety device will mean that buses with doors will be safer still. We are all aware that, sometimes, devices that have been introduced for safety reasons are not wholly welcomed by the travelling public.
It is important to realise that a bus passenger's fear of assault, in common with the fear of the passenger on any form of public transport, is greater than the reality. Compared to 1989, crimes of violence on the underground are down by more than 23 per cent. Assaults on passengers have been reduced by almost 19 per cent. Although the figures for assaults on bus passengers are not readily available from the Metropolitan police—I accept the hon. Lady's concern about that and I shall follow up the issue to see whether more work is required— London Buses believes that many passengers find bus travel far safer than the street environment in which they live and work.
London Buses Ltd.—LBL—liaises closely with the Metropolitan police. Policemen and policewomen are allowed free travel on buses, both on and off duty. Where there are particular trouble spots, arrangements are made with the police to mount special surveillance exercises in order to catch the culprits.
We cannot and will not be complacent. One assault is one too many and we must address people's fears and apprehensions just as seriously as actual dangers to their

safety. However, it is true that the vast majority of those using buses and trains do so in complete safety as the risk of attack remains very low.
As one example of our commitment to safety and security on public transport, the Government recently published—in conjunction with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, transport operators and the transport police—a booklet entitled "Travel Safely on Public Transport", which gives practical advice to passengers on how to make their journeys safer. The production of the booklet was funded by the Department of Transport, which also took on the responsibility of distributing it.
LBL is concerned with the safety of its bus crews, as well as its passengers. As the hon. Lady said, some attacks on crews are despicable in the extreme. Indeed, assaults on bus crews are much more prevalent than assaults on passengers. It is unacceptable that men and women should be subjected to the risk of attack simply through doing their job, and I fully support the measures that LBL is taking to reduce that risk. I know that all hon. Members would support the management in that.
I am aware of the report produced by the Lambeth public transport group, which advocates the fitting of video cameras to vehicles operated by London Buses Ltd. The document makes some strong points, but it does not tell the whole story. It ignores some of the important steps that LBL has already taken to reduce the number of assaults. All LBL buses are now fitted with two-way radios and protective screens for the drivers. They also have an assault klaxon which starts a horn and sets the vehicle's direction indicators flashing. Those measures are of benefit for bus crews and passengers alike.
The Department of Transport has set up a standing panel on assaults on bus staff, which brings together representatives of the bus and taxi industry, the unions, the police and other Government Departments. The panel looks at violence affecting bus crews and taxi drivers, and also studies vandalism and graffiti. It provides a valuable forum for interested parties to exchange views and information about ways of protecting staff and passengers.
The Lambeth public transport group report argues that the installation of video cameras on buses owned by West Midlands Travel reduced vandalism by 75 per cent. That is welcome. However, the report offers no hard evidence of a reduction in assaults on passengers or staff. The scheme may well have followed from an experiment at the Mander centre in Wolverhampton, of which I know from my local experience. Indeed, you too, Madam Deputy Speaker, may well know of the experiment. When it was announced, it did not meet with universal approval, but its implementation has gone down exceptionally well. It has to be remembered that sometimes these projects are not welcomed by everyone.
I accept that the installation of video cameras can be a deterrent to vandalism and assault. Indeed, LBL itself recognises the benefits and has started on a programme to fit video cameras progressively to all its vehicles. But video cameras are not a panacea. It is a sad irony that one of the two assaults that the Lambeth public transport group describes in its report happened on a bus that had a video camera fitted. In that case, unfortunately, the presence of a video camera was no deterrent. In the other case, video evidence may well have helped the police, but because— —

Ms. Hoey: My point is that, because the media have not given enough attention to the fact that there are video


cameras on some buses, people are not aware that they are installed. The more publicity given to that fact, and the more buses that contain video cameras, the more likely people are to be deterred.

Mr. McLoughlin: I wholly accept the hon. Lady's point. I hope that tonight's Adjournment debate and some of the publicity that the hon. Lady received today in the Evening Standard will go some way to highlighting the fact that there are already cameras on some buses, and that they will spread to more of them.
The video evidence may well have helped the police, but, because of the technical limitations of the video system currently available, there is no guarantee that the videotaped evidence would secure a conviction. However, I accept that we must deliver the message about the many steps being taken by LBL to try to improve security, make a safer environment and make the passenger feel safe—an important underlying factor.
The cost of installing video cameras on all LBL's buses would be about £20 million. I know that there is some dispute about the cost, but I have been given a figure of about £20 million. That is the approximate cost of 200 new buses.
I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that that is a considerable sum. LBL has many competing calls on its

resources. It is for it to decide how best to allocate those resources. LBL is committed to increasing the number of video cameras installed on its buses. The decision on the rate at which cameras are installed on the bus fleet must be a matter for the company.
The Government grant to London Transport will be about £2·5 billion over the next three years. That is more than double the figure in real terms compared with the previous three years, so there need be no financial pressure on bus safety. As in other sectors, it is for London Transport to decide what its priorities are and to act accordingly.
I have every confidence in London Transport and its commitment to ensuring safe working conditions for its staff and a safe, secure and pleasant travelling environment for its passengers. That is in everybody's interests—of the bus operators and the bus users. I hope that, by securing this Adjournment debate, the hon. Lady will have moved one small step along the road of highlighting both how safe our buses are and the measures taken by management, with Government co-operation and agreement, to make the buses a safer form of public transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.